...and all Google wants to do is show you an ad from time to time. But people get crazy about that around here.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Photos is next generation.
- Thread starter Razeus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
...and all Google wants to do is show you an ad from time to time. But people get crazy about that around here.
Yep, I don't really understand that myself. It's like people think there's an actual guy sitting in an office at Google looking at all or your pictures and reading all of your stuff.
Yes, they use your data to target you with ads, but they don't go to advertisers and say "Hey, Jimmy likes pancakes! We'll run your Maple Syrup ad for him!"
It's more along the lines of showing ads to people who meet certain criteria. And honestly, if I'm seeing ads on the web, I'd prefer that they be relevant to me instead of completely random.
I think that's a gross and naïve simplification, as is the insistence that Google does not sell “your data” on you to advertisers (because that is Google's secret sauce). You use semantics to argue that people “don't even understand what they are talking about”: it is clear that Google monetizes your data, it doesn't sell it. Google's data on you is Google's main asset. Google probably knows more about you than any other living person, and giving it access to your photos as well as all the metadata lets Google know more about you. Given that Google Photos is tied to Google's business model, you cannot discuss Google Photos — the product — separately from Google's business model.
As an aside: it gets harder and harder to escape the reach of Google, Facebook and such, they are trying very, very hard to track you even if you use none of Google's or Facebook's services.
Well, Google does do that: they choose to show you a maple syrup ad if Google thinks you're particularly fond of pancakes. But they don't pass on this information to the advertisers, they just promise the Canadian Maple Syrup Conglomerate to show their ads to people who probably like maple syrup.
That's simply not true, because Google does add the information it extracts from your photos to their corpus of data. It's not about whether or not you see ads in the Google Photos interface. And given that a lot of the photos Google Photos ingests are geo tagged, Google has a much better idea where you've been at what time.
Does anyone know if it's possible to upload your Photos or iPhoto library to Google Photos and keep the albums that my pictures are already sorted into?
VERY weak you meant
And BTW, since I go to Google sites voluntarily, how is it "my" data they're messing with? I put it out there. Just like if I see OreoCookie going into Starbuck's and coming out with a coffee; I can tell my buddy at Philz's and they can rush over and give him a coupon or whatever. Nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy in browsing public sites any more than they have such an expectation in going into a public brick and mortar site.
Just because you're giving them data does not mean that they can do whatever the hell they want with it. An online vendor has no right to divulge my credit card information to a third party just because I use it to pay for goods on their webpage either. And last time I checked, when I go to Starbucks and order a coffee, I have to pay for it. But Starbucks won't track where I go afterwards and what I buy in other shops. Google desperately tries to keep me logged in. E. g. right now all of my Google content is in Spanish, because a Mexican friend used my computer to check her Gmail.
Regarding Google Photos, it seems that Google keeps on uploading your photos even after you deinstall Google Photos. This may very well be a bug, but it's certainly disconcerting behavior.
I'm sorry, but this is complete non-sense: you have a right to privacy, and privacy laws still apply even when you are online.
Having a right to privacy in true, depending on where you are (laws vary).
But that doesn't mean that right to privacy extends to everything you do. There are literally hundreds of ways you cede that right (assuming it applies) either expressly or implicitly during various actions online. That's why lawyers like myself can make bank writing those terms of use, EULAs, etc that everybody clicks without reading.
Fortunately sometimes Big Gov steps in and sets some parameters in the form of regulation. But that varies; in I guess parts of the EU now I've got a statutory right to turn my past private, and force Google to forget the rash post I put up earlier (Macrumors too?). But not in the US.
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a term of art in US law, and has been defined in countless cases. If the FBI wants to come in and search your HD for your browsing history, yeah, you win: they need a warrant. It's private. In your house. If, OTOH, they go to Macrumors and say show a list of who browsed the thread "Google photos..." you're SOL. But if we were talking about an email exchange we both had over Gmail, that would probably be a different result.
And likewise, the cops can follow you around in public. From Starbucks to Starbucks. And Starbucks could do that as well, say if they wanted to do market research to see how fast you drank that vente.
But you are right in that they "can't do whatever they want with it" depending on what "it" is. Just as we are subject to laws and implied or explicit agreements about what is done with data, so is Google. The difference is they have an army of lawyers who lets them get as close to the legal edge as they can pursuing their own interests; we, OTOH, are often clueless. Which is why you should know what you're getting into, specifically, when you use a service like Google. If someone uses Google, especially free services, without that due diligence I find it hard to feel sympathy with their loss of privacy.
But that doesn't mean that right to privacy extends to everything you do. There are literally hundreds of ways you cede that right (assuming it applies) either expressly or implicitly during various actions online. That's why lawyers like myself can make bank writing those terms of use, EULAs, etc that everybody clicks without reading.
Fortunately sometimes Big Gov steps in and sets some parameters in the form of regulation. But that varies; in I guess parts of the EU now I've got a statutory right to turn my past private, and force Google to forget the rash post I put up earlier (Macrumors too?). But not in the US.
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a term of art in US law, and has been defined in countless cases. If the FBI wants to come in and search your HD for your browsing history, yeah, you win: they need a warrant. It's private. In your house. If, OTOH, they go to Macrumors and say show a list of who browsed the thread "Google photos..." you're SOL. But if we were talking about an email exchange we both had over Gmail, that would probably be a different result.
And likewise, the cops can follow you around in public. From Starbucks to Starbucks. And Starbucks could do that as well, say if they wanted to do market research to see how fast you drank that vente.
But you are right in that they "can't do whatever they want with it" depending on what "it" is. Just as we are subject to laws and implied or explicit agreements about what is done with data, so is Google. The difference is they have an army of lawyers who lets them get as close to the legal edge as they can pursuing their own interests; we, OTOH, are often clueless. Which is why you should know what you're getting into, specifically, when you use a service like Google. If someone uses Google, especially free services, without that due diligence I find it hard to feel sympathy with their loss of privacy.
I think there is a difference between content that has been published to the public (like forum posts) and private information (say, credit card information, private email messages or login credentials).
In most jurisdictions I'm aware of, there are laws against stalking and harassment
Starbucks tracks you via different information, though (e. g. your credit or loyalty card). And if you don't want to be tracked, there is a simple and obvious solution. On the web with most trackers, that's no longer an option (e. g. via undeletable evercookies and several trackers implanted in each ad that follow you around the web even after you leave the page). Likewise, if Google Photos continues to track you after you have deleted the app, that's a problem. I think you touch on an important point, namely that laws and regulations are lagging behind with technological development. People have not come to grips about creating a balance between expectations of privacy and the ability of using free services (which in most cases need to monetize your information to run the services). And I think that's why you can't divorce the discussion of Google Photos from Google's business model — which is really unfortunate, because Adobe and Apple would kill for the automatic indexing capabilities.
Well, yes and no. I deliberately try to avoid using Gmail and other Google services for that reason (although I do use Google search). Try to avoid Google and you'll see how hard that actually is. But I don't think Google should have a carte blanche or that it's really clear how the data they have on you is used. Probably that's Google's best guarded secret, though, and they are not inclined to divulge anything.
That's a tough question as to when following becomes stalking, whether you're talking criminal activity or just police surveillance. Think about papparazzi.
Look at People v Jones; that's the US Supreme Court case on police tracking by GPS tracker. Discusses these issues. And that raises the point that since all privacy rights are balanced against other societal rights and obligations, like safety, it matters greatly who is doing the stalking/watching/collecting. People seem to be OK when Google collects certain data, but less happy when that same data is "shared" with the feds. And that's not irrational because the feds can kill you with a drone (but not Google...yet; wait till SkyNet).
The drone issue is fueling a lot of debate on this too. And it's pertinent to us, as photographers. We invade people's privacy all the time. If you don't want Google looking at your photos, OK. But what about those people in those street photos we take? are we invading their privacy? even without putting them online at Google or in a challenge here?
I DO read the privacy disclosures and deliberately choose what to put where. That's why I have email in Canada, for example, and not in the US where I live. And a secure email account in yet another country. Since I live in CA (which has increased privacy protection over and above US law) and near Google it is, I grant you, easier for me to suss out what I should and shouldn't give Google.
I wish Apple were more transparent (on this and many other issues). So I avoid using them even more than Google. But when I am really concerned, I turn to outfits that are explicitly about protecting my stuff. They aren't free, but you get what you pay for.
And I was heartened to see that Apple, Google and others are taking a stand against the US fed's attempt to force the installation of backdoors, sort of ClipperChip v. 2. Good for them.
Meanwhile, if you do upload to Google it is amazing to see what their search can do. Kinda freaky. Like if they can figure out that's a picture of a mountain, they can figure out I like skiing, and then sell that info. I'm OK with that but not everyone is. But it is driving stuff like facial recognition software, which is now incorporated in cameras, so we get a benefit. But it also means that Google or Facebook might find YOU in that photo someone took of you on the street.
TL;DR: be careful out there. With your stuff, and with other's privacy.
Look at People v Jones; that's the US Supreme Court case on police tracking by GPS tracker. Discusses these issues. And that raises the point that since all privacy rights are balanced against other societal rights and obligations, like safety, it matters greatly who is doing the stalking/watching/collecting. People seem to be OK when Google collects certain data, but less happy when that same data is "shared" with the feds. And that's not irrational because the feds can kill you with a drone (but not Google...yet; wait till SkyNet).
The drone issue is fueling a lot of debate on this too. And it's pertinent to us, as photographers. We invade people's privacy all the time. If you don't want Google looking at your photos, OK. But what about those people in those street photos we take? are we invading their privacy? even without putting them online at Google or in a challenge here?
I DO read the privacy disclosures and deliberately choose what to put where. That's why I have email in Canada, for example, and not in the US where I live. And a secure email account in yet another country. Since I live in CA (which has increased privacy protection over and above US law) and near Google it is, I grant you, easier for me to suss out what I should and shouldn't give Google.
I wish Apple were more transparent (on this and many other issues). So I avoid using them even more than Google. But when I am really concerned, I turn to outfits that are explicitly about protecting my stuff. They aren't free, but you get what you pay for.
And I was heartened to see that Apple, Google and others are taking a stand against the US fed's attempt to force the installation of backdoors, sort of ClipperChip v. 2. Good for them.
Meanwhile, if you do upload to Google it is amazing to see what their search can do. Kinda freaky. Like if they can figure out that's a picture of a mountain, they can figure out I like skiing, and then sell that info. I'm OK with that but not everyone is. But it is driving stuff like facial recognition software, which is now incorporated in cameras, so we get a benefit. But it also means that Google or Facebook might find YOU in that photo someone took of you on the street.
TL;DR: be careful out there. With your stuff, and with other's privacy.
Yup, you're right, the word that comes to mind is informed consent. Privacy is really tricky, and I think it'll take a few more information leak scandals before people wake up. Google here
Google and Apple try very hard here and succeed in different areas to communicate their intent on privacy (I think Apple should definitely have a page that explains what data they do have on file as well as how they use it, but Apple is clearly saying that they don't want private information they don't need and evangelize that amongst app developers as well). In quite a few cases, the language of EULAs can be ambiguous. E. g. if you merely write that you give Apple/Google the right to access and process the data, they could use that provision to index files or create a new jpg thumbnail.
Things like facial recognition make things much more complicated: if Google were to link facial recognition across accounts, it could establish relationships between people, even if these people are not ok with it. Arguably, this is one instance where Facebook has an edge compared to Google, and I think Google would like to build a tree of relations between people as well. For instance, if you took a picture of me at your last birthday party, it could potentially link that to the photo I published on my homepage — even if I do not consent to that. (You run into a baby version of this problem when posting group photos to Facebook, some people get quite miffed.)
Google and Apple try very hard here and succeed in different areas to communicate their intent on privacy (I think Apple should definitely have a page that explains what data they do have on file as well as how they use it, but Apple is clearly saying that they don't want private information they don't need and evangelize that amongst app developers as well). In quite a few cases, the language of EULAs can be ambiguous. E. g. if you merely write that you give Apple/Google the right to access and process the data, they could use that provision to index files or create a new jpg thumbnail.
Things like facial recognition make things much more complicated: if Google were to link facial recognition across accounts, it could establish relationships between people, even if these people are not ok with it. Arguably, this is one instance where Facebook has an edge compared to Google, and I think Google would like to build a tree of relations between people as well. For instance, if you took a picture of me at your last birthday party, it could potentially link that to the photo I published on my homepage — even if I do not consent to that. (You run into a baby version of this problem when posting group photos to Facebook, some people get quite miffed.)
I started using Google Photos yesterday and I really am impressed with the Assistant feature. Recommended collages, animation, panoramas, etc. Nice touch.
I'm loving animations! It's to the point that I am actually taking more multi shot photos in hopes of a new animation
My opposing view:
I trust Google more with my stuff than Apple. Apple has had way too many problems with the cloud and they never seem to continously update their software. Google on the other hand hasn't had celebrity photos hacked, nor do they pretend they are doing something they haven't otherwise advertised.
I trust Google more with my stuff than Apple. Apple has had way too many problems with the cloud and they never seem to continously update their software. Google on the other hand hasn't had celebrity photos hacked, nor do they pretend they are doing something they haven't otherwise advertised.
And rather than a massive and incomprehensible TOS like Apple has, Google has a TOS that is about 9 pages long and is in plain english. In other words, they tell you they are going to scan your data and you get the choice.
Apple also scans your data, but the fact that they are doing so gets buried in a massively complicated TOS.
So, I agree, I trust Google more with my data, because they are upfront and honest about what they are and are not going to do.
Hence why I ask the question: Why can't I ever delete my Apple ID if they are such advocates of consumer's privacy?
Some of the celebrity pictures were taken from the celebs' Gmail accounts rather than just iCloud, and at the same time 5 million Gmail addresses with passwords were posted.
You are right about Apple's TOS being inscrutable by normal human beings, although I don't think 9 pages of human readable still isn't pushing the needle far enough. But it's an improvement.
What exactly do you claim Apple does? In most EULAs you give Apple the right to access and process your files, something that is necessary to automatically push thumbnails and scaled versions of your photos, for instance. That isn't the same that Google and Flickr are doing, for example.
Stay away from Google Photos. The compression it makes to your pics/vids is outrageous.
I uploaded some pics/vids and then I downloaded those files to compare quality. It wasn't that bad to the naked eye. Many weeks later I decided to download files and I realized the quality decreased quite a lot, specially for videos. Fortunately I made some backups. I know that's the norm but I was fool to trust Google.
My advice? Use Flickr. It doesn't compress your photos, It gives you 1TB instead of 15GB (Google option that doesn't screw quality). It doesn't mess with your metadata.
I uploaded some pics/vids and then I downloaded those files to compare quality. It wasn't that bad to the naked eye. Many weeks later I decided to download files and I realized the quality decreased quite a lot, specially for videos. Fortunately I made some backups. I know that's the norm but I was fool to trust Google.
My advice? Use Flickr. It doesn't compress your photos, It gives you 1TB instead of 15GB (Google option that doesn't screw quality). It doesn't mess with your metadata.
Google Photos is fantastic. You chose the free option which you knew compresses photos, then condemn GP for it?! Use the full quality upload version, which is worth every penny. The feature set of GP, in terms of visual recognition, search capability, etc, far exceeds the competitors.
^^
I knew there was compression. What I'm saying is that the quality changed later. The photos were half size during compression. Quality was okay, nothing to complain. THEN (weeks later) when I decided to download the full content of an album, the compression were below the first compression. It looks like it was compressed TWICE. Same for the videos.
It looked like Google did another compression, specially for videos.
I'm giving a warning. If you want to use Google Photos, don't use the unlimited version.
I knew there was compression. What I'm saying is that the quality changed later. The photos were half size during compression. Quality was okay, nothing to complain. THEN (weeks later) when I decided to download the full content of an album, the compression were below the first compression. It looks like it was compressed TWICE. Same for the videos.
It looked like Google did another compression, specially for videos.
I'm giving a warning. If you want to use Google Photos, don't use the unlimited version.
For the video, were you watching the low res version of the video? I've noticed by default, the website always shows me the SD version of a video, but if you click the little gear icon on the bottom right corner of the video, you can choose the HD version. Try switching that and then hit the download button for the video.
Yup. If you are using the free tier, don't expect any control over quality, it would be unreasonable to expect that from Google.