This is about Google Collections (a sort Pinterest built into recent Android and potentially sharable) not your Chrome browser bookmarks which are private. Of course, e2e encryption is also optionally available for much of browser sync content, bookmarks included - if you're extra paranoid, turn that on.

https://www.google.com/collections

On the other hand, if users are confusing Collections and sync'd bookmarks, is that really the user's fault? Or is it Google's for designing a UX that has people "accidentally" sharing bookmarks thru Google instead of using the E2E-able browser sync?

I can see someone saying, "ok, we launched Collections, your KPI is to increase usage by X%", and some UX designer figures "oh then we need to put Collections above Bookmarks and make it difficult to tell what's the difference so that we can say that Collections 'has traction'".

Google Collections isn't featured on Chrome for Android or any other platform, it's primarily managed by the Search app with some integration with Maps.

Let's count the number of people who echo in with "Google Bad", and "OMG I can't believe Google is doing that", etc.

It never ceases to amaze me that people will read any randomly written headline on the internet and just assume that it's true, particularly when confirmation bias is present.

edit: The headline here used to be "Google moderates bookmarks", with the implication being that private bookmarks saved to your profile are moderated by Google.

Is Google not bad somehow?

Because from where I’m standing they fudge the lines between “collections” and old fashioned bookmarks and try their best to nudge people towards “collections”, only to then curate what you can and can’t save regardless of it being shared with others.

Care to elaborate?

Google is a privacy invasion master... No need to be paranoid.

Why is E2E opt-in?

Same same reason it always would be: it is inconvenient and can lead to loss of data.

Lose your old device, get a new device, and you won't have the key. A normal user going through this flow would be furious. Only technically competent users understand that e2e has downsides and how to mitigate those.

Given that Google already stores passkeys and other encryption credentials, I'm sure they could come up with an scheme to securely manage E2EE keys across devices.

Given that the most common transition here is

I have 1 device -> I have 0 devices because I lost my phone

I think what you mean is "Google can do this for users with more than one device". Which they do.

E2EE has meaning, and being convenient to recover isn't in it.

I don't know, I don't make Chrome. But if I had to guess, most people want to be able to lose a key (in this case a completely separate password) without losing all their syncable browser stuff.

Edit: a fun way to think through the design constraints is to think about "how come Apple default-e2e syncs all sorts of things without an extra password but Chrome doesn't"

I am as horrified as you probably are, but Google is quite possibly not allowed (by law) to share certain links. Even if technically allowed, their lawyers would likely not let them participate or facilitate sharing links to sites that would be deemed "facilitating illegal activity".

People are starting to learn why all their s*t should not be up in the cloud.

This isn't sharing, these bookmarks are private to the user in question.

It is for sharing. This is their shared/public bookmark collections, not browser bookmarks.

No it's not, read the comments. This is their synced bookmarks that are not publicly shared.

I think this depends on a radical redefinition of what it means to "share" something. If I put a book in a self-storage unit, and later go to retrieve it, is the owner of the property "providing" or "sharing" the book? What if I am leasing an apartment from a landlord?

I suppose it is an issue inherent to services set up to run through central providers, who can institute arbitrary controls on the services, i.e. if they don't they are failing to do so, which of course exposes them to liability and censure, et cetera.

Irrespective of this is right or wrong, the concern of the lawyers at google would not be "If Google _should_ be held accountable for the private activity of users", the concern of the lawyers will always be "what _could_ they be held accountable for."

Section 230 of the CDA shields Google from liability for the links users choose to share using their services or not.

I doubt that applies if they have a court order or request from the FBI to block certain domain names or links.

If you had a court order or "request for cooperation" from the FBI to block that domain name, would you do it?

I use Chrome sync and nothing from my bookmarks appears at https://www.google.com/save/ so there must be more to it than the title implies.

Your comment made me a little curious about what this might include, and for me that same URL has only some lists of places I have saved in Google Maps (on Android).

They appear in the same categories but grouped as "collections", eg. "Want to go" and "Saved places", which are both default options and identified on the map by different icons.

I like that they tell you the link they deleted so at the least you haven't lost any data.

You've lost functionality of course since this is a publicly viewed set of links. My comment isn't any sort of defense of google (why would I defend them?). But it is funny, as if "our lawyers/my boss said we had to delete this so I'm going to publish it one more time"

I'm not sure we can really blame users for mistaking "saved items in the google app" and "bookmarks in the browser app" considering everything Google has done to blurry the line. Look at some screenshots:

https://www.guidingtech.com/guide-use-google-collections-mob...

Searches in the Google app open in an embedded browser. It has a handy "save" (bookmark) icon. Wait, you mean this is not a Chrome bookmark ? How could I know ? I just tried it, and the icon appears even if you have never interacted with https://www.google.com/collections.

Who uses Google sync anymore? I mean, seriously.

I just recently started to. Stopped using pretty much all Google services years ago, but the company I work for now uses (and heavily relies on) Google Workspace, so couldn’t avoid it. Being able to log into a browser and have all of your bookmarks, history, settings, and passwords is great. I know brave and Firefox offer this too, but those experiences just aren’t as seamless

I would never want to sync my personal browsing data to my work computer and I wouldn't want to give my work an excuse to look at my personal computer by syncing my work data to my personal computer.

Literally millions of people.

Who needs dystopian fiction when Google is here to have us live it in real life?

Another reason why E2EE is important.

The other end is Google though, as you'll get access to your Sync data from everywhere you log in.

The solution is probably a service ran on the user end, like the ones offered by Synology or the other NAS makers.

The first and the last E are implied to be the end user in this context.

Having access to your data while being the only one holding the encryption keys is perfectly possible.

Ah yes all of those dystopian novels about bookmarks synchronising across devices. Chilling.

Did I say dystopian? How foolish of me.

A corporation unilaterally deciding to go through the information I’ve saved to ensure that my memories don’t contain any wrongthink is of course a utopian outcome.

Hail Alphabet!

Trust Google with your data, don't be surprised if they act like the corporation they are. Seriously, I don't understand why after all these years and all the examples people still treat google as this "cool tech company".

use firefox. the personal information stored on their cloud service (such as bookmarks) can't be accessed even by mozilla.

so, c'mon. just use firefox.

How do they manage the e2e key? Is it derived from your password?

And more interesting detail here: https://support.apple.com/guide/security/account-recovery-co...