it will acquire Dropcam, makers of the eponymous Internet-connected smart home monitoring camera lineup
No. No. No. No.
You have it backwards. The eponymous one is the one who provides the name, not the one named for something else. In this instance, the camera is said to be sold by the eponymous company, Dropcam.
The word "eponymous" seems to almost always be employed by those who don't know how to use it, in an effort to seem more literate than they actually are.
<strong style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;list-style:none;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;">2. Gmail: prying and spying</strong> . This October, a federal judge refused to dismiss a potential class-action lawsuit brought by Gmail users who objected to its practice of analyzing the content of all the messages on its network and selling byproducts to advertisers. Those suing Google said it violated federal wiretap laws.
oookaaay. . . If that link was supposed to be proof Google sells personal data it wasn't. So I'll repeat: Google doesn't sell user data to whoever will pay despite your wish it were true. It would make hate of Google much more rational wouldn't it?
Apple has specific divisions in Austin TX and Samta Clara CA, likely elsewhere too, dedicated to finding commercial uses for the mountaims of data Apple has collected. FWIW user and user device data can serve a whole lotta purposes and has value to the company collecting it well beyond the delivery of a few targeted ads.
If it makes you a little happier to believe Google is 100% behind everything then don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of that. IMHO Quantcast might have a little to do with it tho. They've had their own issues of course and a search for "Quantcast privacy lawsuit" will offer details if you have any interest.
Nope. It's not about what I believe. The "ironic" ad that GTR posted, and the one I was responding to, has a little blue triangle in the corner:
Try this: on this site (this page you're reading right now) look for ads with that same little blue triangle with the "i" inscribed in it--> Click on that, and it takes you to this page. That means the ad came from Google's AdSense.
If it makes you a little happier to believe Google isn't 100% behind this ad, then don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your "Quantcast lawsuit" smokescreen.
Oh, you were only commenting on that one specific ad, not that Google is 100% behind all targeted ads here at AI. My apologies then for the misunderstanding. Based on a couple of other responses I wsn't the only one who misread your intention. Sorry.
oookaaay. . . If that link was supposed to be proof Google sells personal data it wasn't. So I'll repeat: Google doesn't sell user data to whoever will pay despite your wish it were true. It would make hate of Google much more rational wouldn't it?
I don't have a hate for Google. I do not have an unconditional love for them unlike you & I also don't have problems with reading comprehension like yourself. Explain to me what "selling byproducts to advertisers" means. Talk about zealotry. Kind of what I expected.You made the assertion they don't profit off of data. Profiting off of personal data by being the conduit to advertisers, is the same as selling that data. Tell me what is it you think they do with that data?
I don't have a hate for Google. I do not have an unconditional love for them unlike you & I also don't have problems with reading comprehension like yourself. Explain to me what "selling byproducts to advertisers" means. Talk about zealotry. Kind of what I expected.You made the assertion they don't profit off of data. Profiting off of personal data by being the conduit to advertisers, is the same as selling that data. Tell me what is it you think they do with that data?
They use the data to pair end-users up with a good advertisement match. The advertiser never learns of the user or anything about them, unless they become a customer/user of the advertiser's products/services.
Hey look. I quoted your own words! I can't believe you think morality is apples top priority.
See how only doing partial quotes can make it read whatever you want to read? It's almost like I've heard that before...
Ah yes, there it is.
When your argument is so empty that you feel the need to manipulate a quote, it's pathetic. Really, you need to just stop while you're behind.
I cut out preceding sentences because I didn't think they were relevant and didn't add any particular context of significance, and because unnecessarily big quotation blocks in a thread are annoying. Your manipulation deliberately removes context and plain intention and thus is not at all comparable. I thought he was responding to the last part of the paragraph, since when I quote someone I want my comment to follow on directly from the last part of what they said. If they don't then conversations become mangled and hard to follow.
I've invited him to clarify if that isn't what he meant, so your attack on my pathetic and empty argument is somewhat overblown. I understood his point to be one thing, and if that's not what he meant, then that's fine, all he has to do is say so.
EDIT: I mean seriously, look at the full quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercow
Apple has been convicted of price fixing, anti poaching tactics, there was also a case previously about Apple saving GPS location data of users despite them saying they weren't. You're kidding yourself if you think morality is their top priority.
You’re kidding yourself if you think this is the truth.
Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple hasn't been convicted of price fixing and anti poaching tactics? Because they have (aside: I'm not sure if "convicted" is technically the right word, but if that's the argument being made then it's a semantic and rubbish one).
Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple haven't been caught saving GPS location data when they said they weren't? Because they have.
If TS was doing that then he is demonstrably, provably, false.
I gave TS the credit for not claiming that the demonstrably, provable truths were false, and assumed he meant the last thing (which he has aped with his sentence structure, implying so). You're saying that I manipulated the quote to make him look bad? Manipulating the quote removed the obviously true stuff!
Patent absurdity in your argument. And you have the gall to call me pathetic and my argument empty? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Okay! I’ll keep that in mind the next time you call out something I say.
If you can't see the difference between quantifiable and categorical claims that can be proved or disproved, and the naivety of a blindly trusting a multinational corporation to do what it says it will do, which cannot be "proved" in any meaningful way, then I don't know what to say. I'd offer "we can agree to disagree" but your position of being scared by people not being so naive is so ridiculous I don't think I could stomach that.
I cut out preceding sentences because I didn't think they were relevant and didn't add any particular context of significance, and because unnecessarily big quotation blocks in a thread are annoying. Your manipulation deliberately removes context and plain intention and thus is not at all comparable. I thought he was responding to the last part of the paragraph, since when I quote someone I want my comment to follow on directly from the last part of what they said. If they don't then conversations become mangled and hard to follow.
I've invited him to clarify if that isn't what he meant, so your attack on my pathetic and empty argument is somewhat overblown. I understood his point to be one thing, and if that's not what he meant, then that's fine, all he has to do is say so.
EDIT: I mean seriously, look at the full quote:
Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple hasn't been convicted of price fixing and anti poaching tactics? Because they have (aside: I'm not sure if "convicted" is technically the right word, but if that's the argument being made then it's a semantic and rubbish one).
Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple haven't been caught saving GPS location data when they said they weren't? Because they have.
If TS was doing that then he is demonstrably, provably, false.
I gave TS the credit for not claiming that the demonstrably, provable truths were false, and assumed he meant the last thing (which he has aped with his sentence structure, implying so). You're saying that I manipulated the quote to make him look bad? Manipulating the quote removed the obviously true stuff!
Patent absurdity in your argument. And you have the gall to call me pathetic and my argument empty?
I fail to see how any of that addresses my only point of you needing to stop while you're behind.
I Explain to me what "selling byproducts to advertisers" means.
I'd guess the terminology came from the team of lawyers who were filing the lawsuit (if it wasn't made up by your article's author), used to cast the defendant in the worst light possible as lawyers are typically expected to do. It does not say Google was selling your personal data to 3rd parties. Didn't you question your belief when you couldn't find anything to factually support it other than lawyer-speak? If Google really was selling personal information the lawyers would have come right out and plainly said so. That would be one huge industry-changing lawsuit worth untold billions. No beating around the bush with a vague term like "by-products".
Profiting off of personal data by being the conduit to advertisers, is the same as selling that data. Tell me what is it you think they do with that data?
If profiting off data by being the conduit to advertisers is the same as selling that data it makes Apple guilty of it too doesn't it? How do you think iAds get to their target audience? With Apple's assistance of course and derived from user data they've collected about you along with other Apple customers.
In the meantime while you obsess over Google collecting and selling personal information you ignore the companies who really are doing so, Companies like Acxiom (enabled here at AI) and Epsilon and even credit reporting agencies like Experian that make a living from the sale of data. If you really believe that Google delivering targeted ads while keeping the data that enables it under lock and key should be a primary concern you're being incredibly naive.
Pay attention as you read too. Not once will you find any of them claiming Google is involved in selling personal data. Not one of them. It's a imaginary story coming from those with an agenda to claim they sell your personal information. Google is not the enemy you should be watching if you're worried someone is selling details of your health, finances and family. Here's 20 that really are selling you out. http://readwrite.com/2012/04/26/here-are-20-companies-who-sell-your-data-how-to-stop-them#awesm=~oI1nrxf5ycY6ea
You may not want to share any information with Google for any number of reasons including having no reason at all. Selling that personal data to the highest bidder shouldn't be one of them as it's imaginary FUD.
Well I disagree that I'm "behind", for all the reasons in my big post above. I showed, pretty conclusively to my mind, that your premise for saying that was flawed.
If profiting off data by being the conduit to advertisers is the same as selling that data it makes Apple guilty of it too doesn't it? How do you think iAds get to their target audience? With Apple's assistance of course and derived from user data they've collected about you along with other Apple customers.
Comments
Now you’re just saying random things that have nothing to do with the argument.
Okay! I’ll keep that in mind the next time you call out something I say.
No. No. No. No.
You have it backwards. The eponymous one is the one who provides the name, not the one named for something else. In this instance, the camera is said to be sold by the eponymous company, Dropcam.
Refer to the NY Times grammarian:
http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/eponymous-sources/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
The word "eponymous" seems to almost always be employed by those who don't know how to use it, in an effort to seem more literate than they actually are.
oookaaay. . . If that link was supposed to be proof Google sells personal data it wasn't. So I'll repeat: Google doesn't sell user data to whoever will pay despite your wish it were true. It would make hate of Google much more rational wouldn't it?
Long term projections are meaningless as things change all the time.
http://mobile.theverge.com/2011/12/7/2618225/eric-schmidt-le-web-paris-google-tv-majority-all-tvs
http://mobile.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/apple/119355/apple-needs-netbook-quick-warns-idc/
As probably most every large company does Apple too mines user data for information of value. With the mention of AI Siri might be one of the tools Apple uses to do so.
http://www.kdnuggets.com/jobs/12/05-02-apple-data-mining-engineer.html
Apple has specific divisions in Austin TX and Samta Clara CA, likely elsewhere too, dedicated to finding commercial uses for the mountaims of data Apple has collected. FWIW user and user device data can serve a whole lotta purposes and has value to the company collecting it well beyond the delivery of a few targeted ads.
If it makes you a little happier to believe Google is 100% behind everything then don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of that. IMHO Quantcast might have a little to do with it tho. They've had their own issues of course and a search for "Quantcast privacy lawsuit" will offer details if you have any interest.
https://www.quantcast.com/advertise
Nope. It's not about what I believe. The "ironic" ad that GTR posted, and the one I was responding to, has a little blue triangle in the corner:
Try this: on this site (this page you're reading right now) look for ads with that same little blue triangle with the "i" inscribed in it-->
Click on that, and it takes you to this page. That means the ad came from Google's AdSense.
Google AdSense has a feature that serves up ads based on the content of a page. This is why we see "ironic" ads on AppleInsider forums.
If it makes you a little happier to believe Google isn't 100% behind this ad, then don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your "Quantcast lawsuit" smokescreen.
Oh, you were only commenting on that one specific ad, not that Google is 100% behind all targeted ads here at AI. My apologies then for the misunderstanding. Based on a couple of other responses I wsn't the only one who misread your intention. Sorry.
As we all know, smartphones constantly track your eyes and have a camera on the world around them.
Not your eyes, but they do track your location and they do all come with cameras now. Smartphones can track things as "constant" as Google Glass can.
Hey look. I quoted your own words! I can't believe you think morality is apples top priority.
See how only doing partial quotes can make it read whatever you want to read? It's almost like I've heard that before...
Ah yes, there it is.
When your argument is so empty that you feel the need to manipulate a quote, it's pathetic. Really, you need to just stop while you're behind.
oookaaay. . . If that link was supposed to be proof Google sells personal data it wasn't. So I'll repeat: Google doesn't sell user data to whoever will pay despite your wish it were true. It would make hate of Google much more rational wouldn't it?
I don't have a hate for Google. I do not have an unconditional love for them unlike you & I also don't have problems with reading comprehension like yourself. Explain to me what "selling byproducts to advertisers" means. Talk about zealotry. Kind of what I expected.You made the assertion they don't profit off of data. Profiting off of personal data by being the conduit to advertisers, is the same as selling that data. Tell me what is it you think they do with that data?
I don't have a hate for Google. I do not have an unconditional love for them unlike you & I also don't have problems with reading comprehension like yourself. Explain to me what "selling byproducts to advertisers" means. Talk about zealotry. Kind of what I expected.You made the assertion they don't profit off of data. Profiting off of personal data by being the conduit to advertisers, is the same as selling that data. Tell me what is it you think they do with that data?
They use the data to pair end-users up with a good advertisement match. The advertiser never learns of the user or anything about them, unless they become a customer/user of the advertiser's products/services.
Hey look. I quoted your own words! I can't believe you think morality is apples top priority.
See how only doing partial quotes can make it read whatever you want to read? It's almost like I've heard that before...
Ah yes, there it is.
When your argument is so empty that you feel the need to manipulate a quote, it's pathetic. Really, you need to just stop while you're behind.
I cut out preceding sentences because I didn't think they were relevant and didn't add any particular context of significance, and because unnecessarily big quotation blocks in a thread are annoying. Your manipulation deliberately removes context and plain intention and thus is not at all comparable. I thought he was responding to the last part of the paragraph, since when I quote someone I want my comment to follow on directly from the last part of what they said. If they don't then conversations become mangled and hard to follow.
I've invited him to clarify if that isn't what he meant, so your attack on my pathetic and empty argument is somewhat overblown. I understood his point to be one thing, and if that's not what he meant, then that's fine, all he has to do is say so.
EDIT: I mean seriously, look at the full quote:
Apple has been convicted of price fixing, anti poaching tactics, there was also a case previously about Apple saving GPS location data of users despite them saying they weren't. You're kidding yourself if you think morality is their top priority.
You’re kidding yourself if you think this is the truth.
Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple hasn't been convicted of price fixing and anti poaching tactics? Because they have (aside: I'm not sure if "convicted" is technically the right word, but if that's the argument being made then it's a semantic and rubbish one).
Are you saying that TS was claiming that Apple haven't been caught saving GPS location data when they said they weren't? Because they have.
If TS was doing that then he is demonstrably, provably, false.
I gave TS the credit for not claiming that the demonstrably, provable truths were false, and assumed he meant the last thing (which he has aped with his sentence structure, implying so). You're saying that I manipulated the quote to make him look bad? Manipulating the quote removed the obviously true stuff!
Patent absurdity in your argument. And you have the gall to call me pathetic and my argument empty?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Okay! I’ll keep that in mind the next time you call out something I say.
If you can't see the difference between quantifiable and categorical claims that can be proved or disproved, and the naivety of a blindly trusting a multinational corporation to do what it says it will do, which cannot be "proved" in any meaningful way, then I don't know what to say. I'd offer "we can agree to disagree" but your position of being scared by people not being so naive is so ridiculous I don't think I could stomach that.
I fail to see how any of that addresses my only point of you needing to stop while you're behind.
Really, you need to just stop while you're behind.
I fail to see how any of that addresses my only point of you needing to stop while you're ahead.
Make up your mind, you don't even know where I am!
I'd guess the terminology came from the team of lawyers who were filing the lawsuit (if it wasn't made up by your article's author), used to cast the defendant in the worst light possible as lawyers are typically expected to do. It does not say Google was selling your personal data to 3rd parties. Didn't you question your belief when you couldn't find anything to factually support it other than lawyer-speak? If Google really was selling personal information the lawyers would have come right out and plainly said so. That would be one huge industry-changing lawsuit worth untold billions. No beating around the bush with a vague term like "by-products".
If profiting off data by being the conduit to advertisers is the same as selling that data it makes Apple guilty of it too doesn't it? How do you think iAds get to their target audience? With Apple's assistance of course and derived from user data they've collected about you along with other Apple customers.
In the meantime while you obsess over Google collecting and selling personal information you ignore the companies who really are doing so, Companies like Acxiom (enabled here at AI) and Epsilon and even credit reporting agencies like Experian that make a living from the sale of data. If you really believe that Google delivering targeted ads while keeping the data that enables it under lock and key should be a primary concern you're being incredibly naive.
Look beyond AI and do a little research of your own. With a simple search like "Worst dat brokers" you'll find sources of information like these:
https://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-about-what-data-brokers-know-about-you
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-data-brokers-selling-your-personal-information/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/12/19/data-broker-was-selling-lists-of-rape-alcoholism-and-erectile-dysfunction-sufferers/
Pay attention as you read too. Not once will you find any of them claiming Google is involved in selling personal data. Not one of them. It's a imaginary story coming from those with an agenda to claim they sell your personal information. Google is not the enemy you should be watching if you're worried someone is selling details of your health, finances and family. Here's 20 that really are selling you out.
http://readwrite.com/2012/04/26/here-are-20-companies-who-sell-your-data-how-to-stop-them#awesm=~oI1nrxf5ycY6ea
You may not want to share any information with Google for any number of reasons including having no reason at all. Selling that personal data to the highest bidder shouldn't be one of them as it's imaginary FUD.
Well I disagree that I'm "behind", for all the reasons in my big post above. I showed, pretty conclusively to my mind, that your premise for saying that was flawed.
You have a good day too.
If profiting off data by being the conduit to advertisers is the same as selling that data it makes Apple guilty of it too doesn't it? How do you think iAds get to their target audience? With Apple's assistance of course and derived from user data they've collected about you along with other Apple customers.
At least iEvil isn't evil, in the Google sense.
Of course not. Even though Apple does the exact same thing, they do it with higher standards.