111–120 of 178 posts
I don't see how automatic scanning in order to display advertisements is any different. All machinery, no human ever reads your mail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never accidentally clicked on an ad, I think they're pretty out of the way in that regard. If that's what worries you, sure. Otherwise, the fact that you want to respond to the ad can provide a lot of information to the advertiser. If you're worried about that, just don't respond.
Or if you are really interested in the product, just search for it again in incognito window, so that they cannot possibly relate the two campaigns (assuming you are worried the advertizer had a way to tell that the campaign has been clicked through a gmail ad, which afaik is not possible)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Creepiness"? Are you a child? You seem to comprehend how Google runs its business and pays for its services. Isn't it incredibly ludicrous to call it creepy?
No, reading personal email to deliver advertisements is creepy. It's better than it used to be but we all remember seeing things like casket advertisements when an email mentioned dead code, etc etc. It's creepy, and I would gladly pay google monthly to prevent them from abusing my privacy. But Google doesn't want money from me, it wants to abuse my privacy. That's far more profitable. It's unfortunate but too many s…
One at a time. In a few weeks or months, you'll be done. The point isn't to redirect all email away from Gmail, but to starve it for usable content.
You can check multiple mailboxes for as long a transition period as you need. Maybe in perpetuity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Creepiness"? Are you a child? You seem to comprehend how Google runs its business and pays for its services. Isn't it incredibly ludicrous to call it creepy?
No, reading personal email to deliver advertisements is creepy. It's better than it used to be but we all remember seeing things like casket advertisements when an email mentioned dead code, etc etc. It's creepy, and I would gladly pay google monthly to prevent them from abusing my privacy. But Google doesn't want money from me, it wants to abuse my privacy. That's far more profitable. It's unfortunate but too many s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not conflating anything, I'm pointing our privacy was just a vehicle that was being used to deliver a message, and that message is valid: "If you don't want gmail splashing ads all over your messages, switch to outlook." No need to be a jerk about it and accuse me of trolling.
> I'm pointing our privacy was just a vehicle that was being used to deliver a message, and that message is valid The vehicle is not, though. There is no issue of privacy. They might as well have said "Gmail kills babies, switch to outlook", it's exactly as true (which is, to say, not at all).
That's far different than spam, where the messages are profiled, not the people exchanging them.
Microsoft has trotted their old friend "Get The Facts" out again! Back in the 2000s, they ran a very long anti-Linux campaign under the "Get The Facts" banner. Under this program they paid for many dubious "Total Cost of Ownership" studies, all of which found that Microsoft products were cheaper than those based on Linux. It was a PR disaster for Microsoft as far as the geek community was concerned and they eventuall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm pointing our privacy was just a vehicle that was being used to deliver a message, and that message is valid The vehicle is not, though. There is no issue of privacy. They might as well have said "Gmail kills babies, switch to outlook", it's exactly as true (which is, to say, not at all).
You have been profiled, and the profile works over time and across content. That data exists, and is sold to advertisers. The profile is about you, including private discourse between, say, you and family, and numerous research papers have shown it ties to exactly you even if it's supposedly anonymous. This is absolutely a privacy "issue" even if it's not clear to you personally how this might be a privacy breach. Th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's more: http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-an...
Surely I didn't read that right, MS have a $50 million budget just for Google smear campaigns!? One of the biggest things that makes my blood boil is when corporations invest large sums of money to force consumers to use their crappy products instead of spending that money on making less crappy products that consumers choose to buy.
Dan Lyon's piece is pure sensationalism. Reality is likely more like: 1) there is a government affairs group inside MSFT with a $50m+ annual budget (not crazy given the DOJ impact on the company) 2) they hire a connected political machinists and give him marching orders to drum up concern over Google in DC (the same way Oracle, Novell, Netscape did against MSFT--http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/homeworks/Microsoft_Case.p...). 3) Guy needs a network of folks to do his deeds—he runs around DC recruiting people telling him he has a massive budget because money seems to be the most effective way to persuade people in Washington (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/t...).
Meanwhile, there's a guy with a Google laptop bag doing the same thing.
Microsoft has lost it. If "scanning email" is their only concern, they're doing it too, for the purpose of "prioritizing my privacy" or whatever. I don't get it why people make a big deal out of all this. As long as private emails are not being read by real people, I doubt most people (who know what "scanning email" is) care.
Google is scanning and indexing your material. They are using that index to build a dossier on you, and they are measuring the accuracy of that dossier by evaluating your responses to ads and content fed to you.