back
4 comments
It also isn’t the amount of data but the value.

On the value spectrum (high to low): - Equifax - very little but very high value data - Google - Search, Gmail, location, browsing, apps and time spent on them - Facebook/Twitter - my posts from high school and photos of me trying to look cool

Interestingly, I think Reddit could build a much scarier profile on me based on what I read and what I upvote.

I'm kinda thinking it's time for hard and strict regulations on collecting mass personalized data.
> Google is not only constantly tracking our online movements but may also be monitoring our physical locations.

our locations? no way, we had no idea :O

> report contained an incredible amount documentation on his web activity, going back over a decade.

another dude who doesn't know how to turn off google's history

> the amount of time he spent there, and even the path he took to get there and back

jesus christ, did a footbal mum write this article?

> discovered the company had been archiving his data even when he browsed in Incognito mode, a setting that advertises itself as one that does not save browsing history.

yeah.. history vs IP/browser fingerprinting

Overall nothing new in this article and the title is obviously a false statement.

The file is bigger because he's been using the service longer and my take is that Google is tracking the location almost continuosly (more data), whereas Facebook has way way more sensitive data, like... chat messages and images with all your friends for the past 10 years..

You could basically find out which days someone has diarrhea and what medicine they used based on search history, whilst the friends know only that was shared.

Google is the scariest company out there.