Earlier quoted context omitted.
> disregarding the pattern To agree that it's a pattern, I'd have to agree that any single instance that you've listed is in fact "spying." Since I don't agree that any single instance is "spying," it is inaccurate to state that I'm "disregarding a pattern." Would a personal secretary, paid to be going through my mail and email for me, sorting it, prioritizing it, making suggestions, be a "spy"? OF COURSE NOT. Imagin…
What if your secretary then goes and sells the interesting pieces of information to your competitors? What if your secretary shares your mail and emails with the government without your knowing? What if your secretary receives rewards from companies and other individuals to make subtle suggestions to you? What if your secretary has compiled a secret dossier about all your habits and little quirks and is ready to sell…
I'm unaware of an analogous situation.
> What if your secretary shares your mail and emails with the government without your knowing?
The government spied on Google, much to their harm. They're the victim. Here's a typical Googler reaction:
https://plus.google.com/+KentonVarda/posts/DFQQH9sFQMJ
> What if your secretary receives rewards from companies and other individuals to make subtle suggestions to you?
In lieu of pay? If they're good suggestions, sounds good.
> What if your secretary has compiled a secret dossier about all your habits and little quirks and is ready to sell it to the highest bidder?
Without actually identifying me? Wow, sounds like she knows my preferences well, and is valuable in helping connect me with products I might want.
> How does this sound?
Like the cheapest, fastest, most effective secretary ever. Sign me up.
You act like I don't understand what Google does.
I understand you're uncomfortable with having an automatic secretary. Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending I don't understand the trade-offs I'm consciously making.