111–120 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but Google is by far the most dangerous aggregation of personal information, and the topic of this conversation. It's also a company that spends a lot of effort telling people to trust them when that is clearly unjustified.
> the most dangerous aggregation of personal information Speak for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you trying to deflect attention away from Google?
I am not. Google is only doing what it is forced to. I am activly searching for google alternatives. Ghostly app on iphone, ghostly for firefox, duckduck, but a good mail client? With easy encription? Not available...
How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process. Well, he's going to want to punch me, but here's what I think(?) the answer is: (a) He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, at le…
The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.
Google shouldn't be trusted with everything you have. Between Analytics, Android, Google Search, Documents and E-mail they know what you are thinking and virtually everything you do, online and offline. Even if the current management are saints--I doubt it--the next team will push the envelope to monetize it even more. And then there is the NSA and FBI and the local divorce lawyer. If it's there they will get it. So…
This just seems like a variation of the argument that you should get out of the way of the bullet instead of demanding that the gunman not shoot you in the first place. I should be able to give whatever data I want to Google without worrying that the government is going to take it from Google in secret.
If it chose to, Google could protect users by developing services that do not rely on Google itself examining their personal data.
Google understands the risks better than its users but chooses to expose them because doing so is aligned with its business model and philosophy whereas protecting them is not.
It's a bit like recommending someone travel through a war zone on a bicycle when a tank is an available alternative, because the bike carries advertising you profit from and the tank does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't 100% say that the data is totally totally gone, but seems to say that it is no longer indexed for lookup by your accounr, after 60days after deletion: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7401?hl=en
I don't have any personal knowledge of this but if I were to recklessly speculate, I would wager "deleting stuff is hard". The typical concern is data loss, so to delete something completely you need to unwind your entire data loss prevention stack. Delete a file, delete a row from a database, wipe a cache from another server, scrub any ZFS-style filesystem versioning of data, mirror the changes to any off-site on-li…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free has nothing to do with it. Go ahead and pay for the same services, but it'll do nothing to protect your data from a search warrant.
Actually, it does have something to do with it. When you don't pay for a service in money, the company providing that service has to find some other way of generating money. Often they do this by collecting and selling data about you. Now, that doesn't mean that just because you paid for a service they won't do the same thing. But they'll will have more incentive to protect their paying customers than some service wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be the antithesis of what Google does - they give away services for free in exchange for access to personal information that they use to sell more precise targeting to advertisers. Google's business relies on them being able to examine your personal data. That's how Gmail is paid for. Perhaps someone who has a different business model e.g. Samsung, Microsoft, or Apple should do this.
Google already offers paid email accounts that don't show ads.
Google should invent a distributed, encrypted email protocol and make that network an option in GMail for storage and message sending. That would be a great PR move - if there is no central server, and no central message pipe, it's a little hard for anyone to think Google wants to be complicit in spying.
Expect that Google wants to read what you wrote on the email and to whom. Of course to help you see more ads, er better ads. Cause you're just dying for another dozen ads. Imagine a Google Glass wearer and a NSA order to record everything he sees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web is simply not designed with privacy in mind. People should stop using webmail.
What a truly, truly, truly absurd statement. I run my own webserver and have Roundcube exposed. It's only accessible via my VPN and even then, it's HTTPS. So tell me, how are you planning to compromise that?