Ahhh ... yes. Like privacy? Delete Google from your life and thank you again Apple

[Brons2]

If you have no problem with a corporation having full intimate access to you, your family, and your children personal information that’s fine with me.
To me that is no different then people who feel safe and secure living in a marxist country.
And for the record I have no idea what apt. means.
But I can say one thing based on some posts in here, people will always make an excuse to either be lazy or take the easy way out Or again trust some higher authority with their personal lives.

This is a misnomer. No person at Google is looking at my data. They are busy designing better algorithms and doing other things to enhance revenue streams, and other pie in the sky things that don't bring in revenue, but flex on Google's technical capabilities.

To draw a parallel....

I manage the network team at my office, we have about 750 direct employees and about 20,000 total user accounts spread across more than 500 remote sites (where we have routers and PCs) plus retail partners. I and my team have full access to everything people are doing on the network, and people have to agree to that the first day of work at the office, they have to sign a form that bluntly states there is no expectation of privacy on the network.

Does anyone ever look at the logs? Unless there's an issue, no. We don't have time for it. We look at log data if there's a problem, or if an investigation was requested either by management or law enforcement. That's it. I have a total of 4 people including myself to service all this, and I DO have to roll up my sleeves still and get technical, even though I'm ostensibly management. I have 2 other people that report to me, but they are full time on telecom.

All administrative privilege usage is logged, and logs cannot be deleted ever. If people were inappropriately using their administrative access to snoop around on what people are doing with their personal lives, it would be caught in one of our many and frequent audits.

This is why I mention Google's security research team. They have one of the best, if not the best, security focused apparatus there is. This is why I trust them. It really matters. I trust them not to suffer a security breach that would expose my personal data to people who don't need and should not have access to my data.

I give them this access because it makes my life better with useful integrations around my smart home, personal appointments, anticipation of my activities, etc, etc, etc. As soon as I walk out of my bedroom in the morning my Google smart display tells me what the weather is, how long my commute is, what is going on in the world with according to my preferred media sources, what important emails are waiting for me, and any one of a number of other things I care about. It can turn on and off my lights, turn down the thermostat when we are all away from home, notify me that my garage door is still open if someone leaves it that way, and so forth and so on.

Do they use my information to sell a profile of me to advertisers? Yes they do, and I even get ads that I find halfway useful to me? Yes, I do. Do I care? No, because I'm not willing to trade off any of the aforementioned functionality, and other functionality I didn't mention in the interest of not making this post any longer.

Do I give everyone the same level of access to every company? No. I have Facebook, but it is as locked down as it can be. I don't have any apps or game integrations. I don't trust them to authenticate me to other sites. I set a 128 character maximum complexity password and have 2 factor authentication turned on. I periodically view the list of browsers that I have authenticated to Facebook with, and I pare down any browser that I haven't used it awhile. My address and location settings within the app are fake. I don't ever add location or check in places. I don't allow myself to be tagged in posts by other people without my explicit approval. I don't allow myself to be searched out on Facebook by name or email address. I don't allow any non-friends to see my posts. I have my friend list grouped so posts can be made to the appropriate audiences. I block all third party cookies when browsing facebook.com. I have my ad-blocker set to strip all social media icons from third party sites. Why do I do all this? Because they have proven time and again to be untrustworthy and suffer data breaches.

The difference in mindset is thusly. I care about how vigilant companies are in handling my data. You care about companies handling data period. Only you would be able to say if there is any nuance in your viewpoint. I am willing to trust certain 3rd parties with my data who are vigilant about security, because I want the neat machine learning and AI that they provide.

Have a nice day.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Credit cards and other businesses will already cancel your accounts if they don't like something such as your political opinions. Youtube, Twitter, etc, will cancel you for similar. The ADL just teamed up with Paypal to watch your speech and purchases and will cancel you if they don't like what political etc groups you support. Land of the Free yet the ADL is in charge of your internet purchases.

Have proof of any of this actually happening?

 

[Saabist]

Lost me at "smart home". No way, no how do I want anything to do with that. I have no interest in Google "making my life better". I can tell what the weather is by looking out the window.

 

[dishdude]

This is a misnomer. No person at Google is looking at my data. They are busy designing better algorithms and doing other things to enhance revenue streams, and other pie in the sky things that don't bring in revenue, but flex on Google's technical capabilities.

To draw a parallel....

I manage the network team at my office, we have about 750 direct employees and about 20,000 total user accounts spread across more than 500 remote sites (where we have routers and PCs) plus retail partners. I and my team have full access to everything people are doing on the network, and people have to agree to that the first day of work at the office, they have to sign a form that bluntly states there is no expectation of privacy on the network.

Does anyone ever look at the logs? Unless there's an issue, no. We don't have time for it. We look at log data if there's a problem, or if an investigation was requested either by management or law enforcement. That's it. I have a total of 4 people including myself to service all this, and I DO have to roll up my sleeves still and get technical, even though I'm ostensibly management. I have 2 other people that report to me, but they are full time on telecom.

All administrative privilege usage is logged, and logs cannot be deleted ever. If people were inappropriately using their administrative access to snoop around on what people are doing with their personal lives, it would be caught in one of our many and frequent audits.

This is why I mention Google's security research team. They have one of the best, if not the best, security focused apparatus there is. This is why I trust them. It really matters. I trust them not to suffer a security breach that would expose my personal data to people who don't need and should not have access to my data.

I give them this access because it makes my life better with useful integrations around my smart home, personal appointments, anticipation of my activities, etc, etc, etc. As soon as I walk out of my bedroom in the morning my Google smart display tells me what the weather is, how long my commute is, what is going on in the world with according to my preferred media sources, what important emails are waiting for me, and any one of a number of other things I care about. It can turn on and off my lights, turn down the thermostat when we are all away from home, notify me that my garage door is still open if someone leaves it that way, and so forth and so on.

Do they use my information to sell a profile of me to advertisers? Yes they do, and I even get ads that I find halfway useful to me? Yes, I do. Do I care? No, because I'm not willing to trade off any of the aforementioned functionality, and other functionality I didn't mention in the interest of not making this post any longer.

Do I give everyone the same level of access to every company? No. I have Facebook, but it is as locked down as it can be. I don't have any apps or game integrations. I don't trust them to authenticate me to other sites. I set a 128 character maximum complexity password and have 2 factor authentication turned on. I periodically view the list of browsers that I have authenticated to Facebook with, and I pare down any browser that I haven't used it awhile. My address and location settings within the app are fake. I don't ever add location or check in places. I don't allow myself to be tagged in posts by other people without my explicit approval. I don't allow myself to be searched out on Facebook by name or email address. I don't allow any non-friends to see my posts. I have my friend list grouped so posts can be made to the appropriate audiences. I block all third party cookies when browsing facebook.com. I have my ad-blocker set to strip all social media icons from third party sites. Why do I do all this? Because they have proven time and again to be untrustworthy and suffer data breaches.

The difference in mindset is thusly. I care about how vigilant companies are in handling my data. You care about companies handling data period. Only you would be able to say if there is any nuance in your viewpoint. I am willing to trust certain 3rd parties with my data who are vigilant about security, because I want the neat machine learning and AI that they provide.

I also find you incredibly alarmist as I alluded to previously, and I would not hire you except maybe at the most junior level, explicitly because you don't seem to have any appreciation of the nuance I mention, because in corporate IT you have to strike a balance between security, but also budget, staffing and management priorities.

Have a nice day.

Wow, spot on. One of the best posts I've read in a long time.

 

[Nick1994]

This is a misnomer. No person at Google is looking at my data. They are busy designing better algorithms and doing other things to enhance revenue streams, and other pie in the sky things that don't bring in revenue, but flex on Google's technical capabilities.

To draw a parallel....

I manage the network team at my office, we have about 750 direct employees and about 20,000 total user accounts spread across more than 500 remote sites (where we have routers and PCs) plus retail partners. I and my team have full access to everything people are doing on the network, and people have to agree to that the first day of work at the office, they have to sign a form that bluntly states there is no expectation of privacy on the network.

Does anyone ever look at the logs? Unless there's an issue, no. We don't have time for it. We look at log data if there's a problem, or if an investigation was requested either by management or law enforcement. That's it. I have a total of 4 people including myself to service all this, and I DO have to roll up my sleeves still and get technical, even though I'm ostensibly management. I have 2 other people that report to me, but they are full time on telecom.

All administrative privilege usage is logged, and logs cannot be deleted ever. If people were inappropriately using their administrative access to snoop around on what people are doing with their personal lives, it would be caught in one of our many and frequent audits.

This is why I mention Google's security research team. They have one of the best, if not the best, security focused apparatus there is. This is why I trust them. It really matters. I trust them not to suffer a security breach that would expose my personal data to people who don't need and should not have access to my data.

I give them this access because it makes my life better with useful integrations around my smart home, personal appointments, anticipation of my activities, etc, etc, etc. As soon as I walk out of my bedroom in the morning my Google smart display tells me what the weather is, how long my commute is, what is going on in the world with according to my preferred media sources, what important emails are waiting for me, and any one of a number of other things I care about. It can turn on and off my lights, turn down the thermostat when we are all away from home, notify me that my garage door is still open if someone leaves it that way, and so forth and so on.

Do they use my information to sell a profile of me to advertisers? Yes they do, and I even get ads that I find halfway useful to me? Yes, I do. Do I care? No, because I'm not willing to trade off any of the aforementioned functionality, and other functionality I didn't mention in the interest of not making this post any longer.

Do I give everyone the same level of access to every company? No. I have Facebook, but it is as locked down as it can be. I don't have any apps or game integrations. I don't trust them to authenticate me to other sites. I set a 128 character maximum complexity password and have 2 factor authentication turned on. I periodically view the list of browsers that I have authenticated to Facebook with, and I pare down any browser that I haven't used it awhile. My address and location settings within the app are fake. I don't ever add location or check in places. I don't allow myself to be tagged in posts by other people without my explicit approval. I don't allow myself to be searched out on Facebook by name or email address. I don't allow any non-friends to see my posts. I have my friend list grouped so posts can be made to the appropriate audiences. I block all third party cookies when browsing facebook.com. I have my ad-blocker set to strip all social media icons from third party sites. Why do I do all this? Because they have proven time and again to be untrustworthy and suffer data breaches.

The difference in mindset is thusly. I care about how vigilant companies are in handling my data. You care about companies handling data period. Only you would be able to say if there is any nuance in your viewpoint. I am willing to trust certain 3rd parties with my data who are vigilant about security, because I want the neat machine learning and AI that they provide.

I also find you incredibly alarmist as I alluded to previously, and I would not hire you except maybe at the most junior level, explicitly because you don't seem to have any appreciation of the nuance I mention, because in corporate IT you have to strike a balance between security, but also budget, staffing and management priorities.

Have a nice day.

Very well put. I work in large corporate IT as well, although not to the extent that you do.

I'm basically an email administrator, but I do some other stuff too.

No, we are not reading your emails. Not unless HR gives us keywords to search for, and we have to check an email to see if it's what they were looking for. That's very very rare though. When I do mail traces, I see the subject line of user's emails. I don't care to open the email. Not interested.

Back when I used to work on the HelpDesk, we would have people paranoid about our mobile apps, that it technically has access to the photos on their cell phone. That was because the function of the app was to upload photos (pictures of documents specifically). No, we aren't downloading your phone's camera roll. That's insanity.

 

[sk_pete]

Doesn't Apple have that same access?

absolutely.

i don´t understand the apple cultist behavior.

 

[sk_pete]

Lost me at "smart home". No way, no how do I want anything to do with that. I have no interest in Google "making my life better". I can tell what the weather is by looking out the window.

that thing is also nice security hole, a skilled person can penetrate those systems.

 

[alarmguy]

And Google isn't reading anyone's emails. All of this talk is foolish.

You are 100% correct, google is not reading your email. Google is scanning your email.
I never said google was reading your email but many people get their feathers ruffled and right away go to the defense of the huge corporation that sells their data to the highest bidders in the world and the data of their families and children all so they could get "free" stuff and twist words into reading emails.
Its laughable.

What they ARE doing is MINING data and building profiles on you and everyone in your family.

I suggest you read their "privacy statements" of all the email service of theirs in that case or google it (ha ha). The data in your emails is MINED and sold.

Again, I could care less if that is what people choose in order to get free stuff but they are so misinformed as to what is going on, clueless is what bothers me and believe it or not, many other people. Why on earth do people think they are getting "free" stuff, its all their in the disclosures no one ever reads and they actually think, google in a friend of theirs... *LOL*LOL*

The good news IS people ARE becoming aware and once again, you can thank Apple for that. Europe is already aware of that FACT but we in this country are to focused on "free" stuff as long as we cant see the invasion. Thing is people are starting to see it and its forcing google and the likes to change behavior. That is why google no longer scans your gmail. Right away people thought that meant gmail was private because once again, they dont bother reading the factual privacy disclosures. gmail stopped scanning emails for google use but your email is still mined and the data sold to third parties.

Forget all that, all the information is available for those that care, instead of a forum, if concerned, the internet is your friend for the facts and the privacy statements. Search with google is you wish, then duckduckgo.com

over and out .. google is listening to the public... switching things up but dont think for a second your data will never be sold.
oh... and yes, thank Apple for any little remnant of privacy you have with google....however tiny... after all Apple is educating the people who dont care to understand how they are getting free stuff ... google ONLY changes when left with no other option and with the new apple browser preventing dozens of companies, including google from tracking you across websites ... google is simply coming up with another way around that tracking, now it will be built into chrome... just another reason, for people who dont want their data sold to use Apple products.

1. = https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2021/03/07/google-says-it-wants-a-privacy-first-web-heres-what-that-really-means/?sh=74ffed4f1bfb

2. = ahhh ... yes, how many google users jump through these hoops.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-...ata-about-you-you-can-find-and-delete-it-now/

"One more important thing about your privacy
Be forewarned, just because you set Google not to track your online or offline activity doesn't necessarily mean you've closed off your data to Google completely. Google has admitted it can track your physical location even if you turn off location servicesusing information gathered from Wi-Fi and other wireless signals near your phone. Also, just like Facebook has been guilty of doing for years, Google doesn't even need you to be signed in to track you.

Not to mention, there are sometimes seeming contradictions between Google's statements on privacy issues. For example, Google has admitted to scanning your Gmail messages to compile a list of your purchases in spite of publicly declaring in a 2018 press release, "To be absolutely clear: no one at Google reads your Gmail, except in very specific cases where you ask us to and give consent, or where we need to for security purposes, such as investigating a bug or abuse." Perhaps by "no one" Google meant "no human," but in an age of increasingly powerful AI, such a distinction is moot."

3. = How many more do you want? there are hundreds ... all available to be read...

Go Google free: We pick privacy-friendly alternatives to every Google service

As privacy concerns grow, companies like Google and Facebook that rely on data collection and advertising for revenue are increasingly in the spotlight. But is it really possible to give up Google's vast range of services? Here are my recommended alternatives.

www.zdnet.com

"Google, like Facebook, has a business model that's built on surveillance. The company's stated mission of "organizing the world's information" also includes capturing as much as possible of your information. That information is the base layer of some undeniably useful services, which in turn fuel the advertising that makes up the overwhelming majority of Google's revenue."

 

[alarmguy]

This is a misnomer. No person at Google is looking at my data. They are busy designing better algorithms and doing other things to enhance revenue streams, and other pie in the sky things that don't bring in revenue, but flex on Google's technical capabilities.

To draw a parallel....

I manage the network team at my office, we have about 750 direct employees and about 20,000 total user accounts spread across more than 500 remote sites (where we have routers and PCs) plus retail partners. I and my team have full access to everything people are doing on the network, and people have to agree to that the first day of work at the office, they have to sign a form that bluntly states there is no expectation of privacy on the network.

Does anyone ever look at the logs? Unless there's an issue, no. We don't have time for it. We look at log data if there's a problem, or if an investigation was requested either by management or law enforcement. That's it. I have a total of 4 people including myself to service all this, and I DO have to roll up my sleeves still and get technical, even though I'm ostensibly management. I have 2 other people that report to me, but they are full time on telecom.

All administrative privilege usage is logged, and logs cannot be deleted ever. If people were inappropriately using their administrative access to snoop around on what people are doing with their personal lives, it would be caught in one of our many and frequent audits.

This is why I mention Google's security research team. They have one of the best, if not the best, security focused apparatus there is. This is why I trust them. It really matters. I trust them not to suffer a security breach that would expose my personal data to people who don't need and should not have access to my data.

I give them this access because it makes my life better with useful integrations around my smart home, personal appointments, anticipation of my activities, etc, etc, etc. As soon as I walk out of my bedroom in the morning my Google smart display tells me what the weather is, how long my commute is, what is going on in the world with according to my preferred media sources, what important emails are waiting for me, and any one of a number of other things I care about. It can turn on and off my lights, turn down the thermostat when we are all away from home, notify me that my garage door is still open if someone leaves it that way, and so forth and so on.

Do they use my information to sell a profile of me to advertisers? Yes they do, and I even get ads that I find halfway useful to me? Yes, I do. Do I care? No, because I'm not willing to trade off any of the aforementioned functionality, and other functionality I didn't mention in the interest of not making this post any longer.

Do I give everyone the same level of access to every company? No. I have Facebook, but it is as locked down as it can be. I don't have any apps or game integrations. I don't trust them to authenticate me to other sites. I set a 128 character maximum complexity password and have 2 factor authentication turned on. I periodically view the list of browsers that I have authenticated to Facebook with, and I pare down any browser that I haven't used it awhile. My address and location settings within the app are fake. I don't ever add location or check in places. I don't allow myself to be tagged in posts by other people without my explicit approval. I don't allow myself to be searched out on Facebook by name or email address. I don't allow any non-friends to see my posts. I have my friend list grouped so posts can be made to the appropriate audiences. I block all third party cookies when browsing facebook.com. I have my ad-blocker set to strip all social media icons from third party sites. Why do I do all this? Because they have proven time and again to be untrustworthy and suffer data breaches.

The difference in mindset is thusly. I care about how vigilant companies are in handling my data. You care about companies handling data period. Only you would be able to say if there is any nuance in your viewpoint. I am willing to trust certain 3rd parties with my data who are vigilant about security, because I want the neat machine learning and AI that they provide.

I also find you incredibly alarmist as I alluded to previously, and I would not hire you except maybe at the most junior level, explicitly because you don't seem to have any appreciation of the nuance I mention, because in corporate IT you have to strike a balance between security, but also budget, staffing and management priorities.

Have a nice day.

You are entitled to your thoughts, ideas and feelings about the honorable google.
Lets be clear though, they are your "feelings" not facts, but your are defending google portraying those feelings as facts, you have no idea how, what and why of google. But at least you understand, you allow them to use your data for profit, which is their business model. I am glad you trust them and everyone they sell/share your data with.
Just respect those who rather pay for what they get. IN this case, a company, giant corporation who's business model is turning your information into profits. Its all good but lets just be honest about it. laughable to defend a corporation as being honorable about handling your information that you allow to be collected when that is how they make money in order to give you "free stuff".

"Google, like Facebook, has a business model that's built on surveillance. The company's stated mission of "organizing the world's information" also includes capturing as much as possible of your information. That information is the base layer of some undeniably useful services, which in turn fuel the advertising that makes up the overwhelming majority of Google's revenue."
(from some of the above links)

The problem with your post is you call people names, an "alarmist" when you even admit googles surveillance activity but you know the corporation is so upstanding and great, its ok that they have your profiles and information in order to give you free stuff.
Its a typical attack on people who expose it or disagree with those polices, in your attempt to justify what you even admit is true. You are not the holy grail of the how, what and why google. But I can see you have an understanding my only problem is you sound like someone who wants the world to do as you see it vs another in here who, from his posts, is clueless about how google works.

Leave out the derogatory comments about other people who do not like corporations building profiles on them otherwise you sound childish and not that knowledgeable.

I have the resources to pay for equipment from this company. Ha... imagine anyone from google or alphabet making this speech *LOL* they would go out of business...but this company Apple, is built on a privacy methodology.

Tim Cook warns of ‘data-industrial complex’ in call for comprehensive US privacy laws

‘Our own information is being weaponized against us with military efficiency’

www.theverge.com

 

[kschachn]

absolutely.

i don´t understand the apple cultist behavior.

Oh I'm about as big an Apple cultist as there is, my first Mac was a Mac Plus (with a 20 meg Superdrive) in 1988. I've owned probably 10 various Macintosh computers since then, along with several MacBooks, iPads, iPhones and iPods. But I have no illusions that Apple is somehow not using, viewing or interpreting my every move is just not something I'm going to believe.

The foaming at the mouth posts over how virtuous they are is just silly IMO.

 

[sk_pete]

hahaha !!! apple hypocrisy

 

[alarmguy]

hahaha !!! apple hypocrisy

ah.... another problem with society, many think because someone tweets something that it is true. This actually is a major problem in our society.
Here we are in a forum no less, with screen shots of "tweets" which is just another forum! *LOL*

I got news for everyone, a "tweet" is just as accurate as a post in a forum! We all know the score card on that.

BTW - if you store something on someone else's computer its not private. Like hello to the idiots that think it is. Will anyone blame a big corporation for trying to stamp out child porn on their servers? Yes, the child prom distributors will care. Other then that the public would be outraged if companies were helping to shield child porn distributors.

If you want privacy in storage, keep it on your own computer not someone else's. Its laughable to think otherwise.

 

[sk_pete]

i don´t understand, why anybody would defend a company..
all of them are the same.

 

[uc50ic4more]

i don´t understand, why anybody would defend a company..
all of them are the same.

It almost makes one wish there was a global effort, a community even, that produced software - and made all of its source code available freely; both "free" as in "no cost", and more importantly "free" as in "freedom" - for the sole purpose of serving its users instead of treating them like cattle (in Apple's case, enthusiastic cattle), providing security, privacy, ease of use and stability with no commercial interest at all.

 

[alarmguy]

It almost makes one wish there was a global effort, a community even, that produced software - and made all of its source code available freely; both "free" as in "no cost", and more importantly "free" as in "freedom" - for the sole purpose of serving its users instead of treating them like cattle (in Apple's case, enthusiastic cattle), providing security, privacy, ease of use and stability with no commercial interest at all.

There is, isn't there? Or am I missing something?
I don't think I am missing anything. Its been around forever, the thing is, the majority chooses not to bother with it. Unlike forums, most people don't have a problem with the operating system they choose.

Here it is =

Linux Operating System.​

Linux is different from Windows and Apple in that it’s not a proprietary software, but rather a family of open source systems. In other words, anyone can modify and distribute it. Linux may be the least known on this list, but it’s free and available in many different open source versions. Linux is popular because of its ease of customization and offers a variety of options to those who understand how to use it. If you know how to customize and work with operating systems, Linux is an ideal choice. And if this kind of coding and back-end work is interesting to you, it may be a good idea to purchase a Linux system and get started on manipulating it.

 

[kschachn]

There is, ins't there? Or am I missing something?
I dont think I am missing anything. Its been around forever, the thing is, the majority chooses not to bother with it. Unlike forums, most people dont have a problem with the operating system they choose.

Here it is =

Linux Operating System.​

Linux is different from Windows and Apple in that it’s not a proprietary software, but rather a family of open source systems. In other words, anyone can modify and distribute it. Linux may be the least known on this list, but it’s free and available in many different open source versions. Linux is popular because of its ease of customization and offers a variety of options to those who understand how to use it. If you know how to customize and work with operating systems, Linux is an ideal choice. And if this kind of coding and back-end work is interesting to you, it may be a good idea to purchase a Linux system and get started on manipulating it.

Considering the poster's previous history I'm going to guess he was being a bit sarcastic.

 

[Brons2]

that thing is also nice security hole, a skilled person can penetrate those systems.

They are kept on a separate VLAN and denied access to VLANs/subnets that contain phones and computers. The smart home devices on the IoT VLAN also cannot communicate with one another, only outbound to the Internet. I also monitor what destinations devices are going to, if I see any unusual traffic I investigate.

Exception being the locally controlled network devices, example WiFI light switches running Tasmota, they have access to the smart home hub I run, Hubitat Elevation, but not to the Internet.

 

[Brons2]

You are entitled to your thoughts, ideas and feelings about the honorable google.
Lets be clear though, they are your "feelings" not facts, but your are defending google portraying those feelings as facts, you have no idea how, what and why of google. But at least you understand, you allow them to use your data for profit, which is their business model. I am glad you trust them and everyone they sell/share your data with.
Just respect those who rather pay for what they get. IN this case, a company, giant corporation who's business model is turning your information into profits. Its all good but lets just be honest about it. laughable to defend a corporation as being honorable about handling your information that you allow to be collected when that is how they make money in order to give you "free stuff".

"Google, like Facebook, has a business model that's built on surveillance. The company's stated mission of "organizing the world's information" also includes capturing as much as possible of your information. That information is the base layer of some undeniably useful services, which in turn fuel the advertising that makes up the overwhelming majority of Google's revenue."
(from some of the above links)

The problem with your post is you call people names, an "alarmist" when you even admit googles surveillance activity but you know the corporation is so upstanding and great, its ok that they have your profiles and information in order to give you free stuff.
Its a typical attack on people who expose it or disagree with those polices, in your attempt to justify what you even admit is true. You are not the holy grail of the how, what and why google. But I can see you have an understanding my only problem is you sound like someone who wants the world to do as you see it vs another in here who, from his posts, is clueless about how google works.

Leave out the derogatory comments about other people who do not like corporations building profiles on them otherwise you sound childish and not that knowledgable.

I have the resources to pay for equipment from this company. Ha... imagine anyone from google or alphabet making this speech *LOL* they would go out of business...but this company Apple, is built on a privacy methodology.

Tim Cook warns of ‘data-industrial complex’ in call for comprehensive US privacy laws

‘Our own information is being weaponized against us with military efficiency’

www.theverge.com

The problem is you present your opinion as sacrosanct and others' opinions as uninformed. Speaking purely for myself, that is not the case. I have to weigh the pros and cons of securing a large network every day. There are information risk management matrices that I have to supply to IT management, organizational executive management and auditors frequently. If I evaluated these risks poorly, I would probably not have a job, or at least not at the level that I do.

I make similar decisions on information flows in and out of my household. You want to make different decisions, fine, but don't go portraying yourself as the end all be all of privacy.

And calling the access I provide to Google "prostituting my family" well you're over the line there bud. I reported the post for this. The rest of it is fine, but not that part.

 

[uc50ic4more]

IMO this video is 5 well-spent minutes getting this whole on-device scanning issue explained:

 

[OVERKILL]

that thing is also nice security hole, a skilled person can penetrate those systems.

As @Brons2 noted, you just put them on their own VLAN, heck you can track and lock-down what remote networks/hosts they talk to as well if you so choose.

I find it more than a little amusing that some that are the most alarmist of this are just fine with using the lowest priced commodity hardware on their personal networks running boxed generic Linux OS's that are so often abandonware. It's not surprising that these vendors don't develop their own OS's, there's simply not the revenue stream from the product.