They have no way of filtering out, for example, if you search say 10 different destinations on Google Flights, where you only actually care about one of them.Yes they do. It's not someone looking over your shoulder looking at what you do. It's all about finding patterns in data and behaviours and those are essentially impossible to fake convincingly. You can't and won't know what they pick up on. People are stupendously naive when it comes to these things.
That's easy. Pregnant women stop buying products they used to use once a month
The more bogus searches that "you" are not really interested in is fed to google the more "your" interests get obscured. It doesn't make a dent to the data google collects from everyone else, but "you" stop being as "well defined" in google's eyes.
They have no way of filtering out, for example, if you search say 10 different destinations on Google Flights, where you only actually care about one of them.Yes they do. It's not someone looking over your shoulder looking at what you do. It's all about finding patterns in data and behaviours and those are essentially impossible to fake convincingly. You can't and won't know what they pick up on. People are stupendously naive when it comes to these things.
An story already half a decade old is how Target figured out a girl was pregnant by her purchases. It weren't purchases blatantly related to pregnancy but patterns they saw in other pregnant women. Data mining techniques have become a lot more sophisticated since and companies like Google have much more extensive datasets. Third parties may very well know of a serious illness you have before you do.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/
Data mining doesn't work by magic... it is, when all is said and done, simply statistics... and the results depend on the data they have.
Data mining doesn't work by magic... it is, when all is said and done, simply statistics... and the results depend on the data they have.
So, I don't see how you can argue that adding noise to the data (consistently, over time) is not going to lower the "signal to noise" ratio for the data mining job?
There is a chance google has managed to overcome the old adage "Garbage in, garbage out".
Then again ...they might have not.
Data mining doesn't work by magic... it is, when all is said and done, simply statistics... and the results depend on the data they have.
So, I don't see how you can argue that adding noise to the data (consistently, over time) is not going to lower the "signal to noise" ratio for the data mining job?Read my previous post as it's explained in some detail. This isn't your basic statistics class. Data science is a quickly evolving field and even scientists are caught out by what data can be derived from seemingly harmless datasets they released to their peers. There's a reason data analysts are in very hot demand and that's because they can distill data from massive and often unstructured sets. People here seem stuck in very outdated paradigms.
https://mashable.com/article/anonymous-data-sets-easily-de-anonymized/
....People here seem stuck in very outdated paradigms.
I have re-read your posts, and you haven't actually explained anything in detail at all - you are saying (repeatedly) that it is possible to extract information from patterns in the data - subtle patterns, even - which nobody is disagreeing with. Furthermore, nobody is disagreeing that you can pick up useful information from unexpected "side channels" that most people are not really consciously aware of.
But this kind of analysis is not immune to noise. The cleaner and more trustworthy the input data for the analysis is, the more accurate the results will be. Conversely, the more noise you add (including into the "side channels"), the harder the job gets. This is just common sense and I don't understand why the notion is contentious at all.
I was going to tell you to dial back on the condescension, but upon reading some of your post history I suspect that's a wasted cause.
After all, most of here are engineers, not statisticians, and shouldn't be expected to be capable of doing Google-level data manipulation.
I don't care how Google, Amazon, etc., figure out what I want before I even know I want it; I don't want them figuring it out in the first place.
Except that it's not just garbage. As you're a real person your real behaviour is in there.
I have re-read your posts, and you haven't actually explained anything in detail at all - you are saying (repeatedly) that it is possible to extract information from patterns in the data - subtle patterns, even - which nobody is disagreeing with. Furthermore, nobody is disagreeing that you can pick up useful information from unexpected "side channels" that most people are not really consciously aware of.
But this kind of analysis is not immune to noise. The cleaner and more trustworthy the input data for the analysis is, the more accurate the results will be. Conversely, the more noise you add (including into the "side channels"), the harder the job gets. This is just common sense and I don't understand why the notion is contentious at all.Your real behaviour is still in there. Everything other than what they're comparing you to was filtered out anyway so adding a tiny bit on top makes no difference. Of course your "noise" is likely blatantly obvious.
I have a gmail account on my cellphone but apparently it is required by Android. I
If using Chrome or the Microsoft fork in Edge, there are hard coded IP links to Google servers, used for both tracking, and for analytics, along for detecting DNS poisoning and redirects.
Rather than blocking Google there is another approach to use if your Internet connection is not charged by the Mb. Some browsers have plugins that send a continuous stream of enquiries to Google using your account, one moment it may be asking the melting point of asphalt and the next enquiry could be the population of Manchester NH.
It's a better approach, poison the well, submerge them in so much information that they can't tell good from bad. The moment the servers think that you're a thirty year old housewife from Phoenix or a twenty something from Paris you will know that you've won.
Well, you real behaviour - as in your actual purchasing transactions - is something that you cannot really hide. This data has been used for advertising purposes for years.
E.g. see: https://www.businessinsider.com/credit-cards-sell-purchase-data-to-advertisers-2013-4
But what we are talking about here is ads that follow you around depending on what you have recently searched for - at least, that's what I thought we were talking about! :-)
I have noticed that searching for stuff while logged in on eBay means Google ads will follow you around from then on. So eBay is obviously passing data on to Google, based on your account ID. The ads are completely based on what you searched for on eBay. There isn't much intelligence involved, it seems.
Data is also passed from Google to Facebook, and vice versa. I have proven that by using 100% isolated browsers, where a search on eBay in browser A results in being stalked on Facebook in browser B (on a different computer).
Everyone that has data, is in the business of selling it... it seems. Surveillance capitalism, gotta love it.
What's new with Google/Facebook/eBay etc. is that they are tracking people at the individual level, not anonymizing anything, it would seem.
Of course, we live in a free country, and you can simply choose not to use any modern Internet services, if you don't like it... right?