They don't even have the option any longer, nor had it had been enabled even before that. Marvin's article pre-dates changes put in place by Google back in April
I see that now. I am still unclear about the timeline. I appears that Google originally had a no data mining or ads policy for students, then they decided to offer an ad supported model, and now reversed that policy back to the original more protected privacy policy. Anyway it is good that they currently do not scan the students.
I dunno - at least netbooks were somewhat useful without a network connection.
You can still do a lot offline with a Chromebook and now that they are very popular offline apps are popping up more frequently. Plus installing Linux like Ubuntu alongside Chrome OS is extremely easy if you really need something that works offline. Really though, a Chromebook wouldn't be a smart buy if for any reason a potential buyer doesn't have a stable Internet connection, so your observation is kind of silly. When was the last time you were offline though, really? I mean my Nokia 2520, Nokia 1020, Google Pixel, my daughters HP 11 Chromebook, iPhone 5s, iPad Mini Air, my sons new Nokia 930, HP 11 Chromebook, Nexus 7 and my husbands Lenovo X1, iPhone 5s, new Porsche-Design P'9882 all have LTE with hotspot, plus we have fiber with a DSL backup line at home. The chances of her not having Internet at any given time, is very, very slim. All these LTE lines aren't as crazy as you might think, our mobile providers only charges us 10 bucks extra a month for each additional SIM, up to 3 per phone mobile, used for tablets, 3 SIM's actually only costs 20 extra. It's called MultiSurf See -> https://shop.orange.ch/subscriptions/?lang=en cool huh!
Google is a publicly traded company with a business model that operates on advertising. What any company tries to do is make the best success of the business model they choose. They push it as far as they can get away with. Fans on the outside try to project a persona onto companies to make them feel better and make definitive statements on their behalf like "children aren't tracked, period". Then when it's found otherwise, it changes to 'oh, well they don't do it now so just ignore that they tried to, they're still good people'.
I believe some of the people at Google are good people and the founders at least seem ethical but as a whole it is a publicly traded company that hires people to promote a business model that monetizes people's information and that will be evil at times. Google needs to be treated as objectively as any other company in order to have a 'balanced' discussion.
Your right of course, it's just that soggy35 is getting a little too obsessed about this. I actually never recanted on the whole Google doesn't track kids things, I stood by that they didn't from the start, though I was using the latest data from Google's education site which clearly states this. Nor do they display ads, you threw me for a loop when you said they search emails though, but a quick search showed they they no longer do it any longer. I hope Google also gives everyone that option, do you use any Google services?
I see that now. I am still unclear about the timeline. I appears that Google originally had a no data mining or ads policy for students, then they decided to offer an ad supported model, and now reversed that policy back to the original more protected privacy policy. Anyway it is good that they currently do not scan the students.
Agreed and the zero ads policy is pretty great, even if the schools were to use normal laptops the children would be exposed too ads if the school allowed access to Google search, on a Chromebook there is none, this is defiantly a good thing.
I is not immediately clear to from reading the article what exactly happens when the student is logged in with their student ID but using other Google services outside of Apps for Education such as YouTube. It doesn't explain if the student email scanning data is currently being used for targeted ads at this time or if it is in preparation for such activities at a later date. I was surprised that Google offered an ad supported Education model to the schools, which makes no sense to me, but if true then obviously they would need to data mine even though they don't know who the students really are since they are anonymous. In the case that the schools were using the ad option, it is up to the schools to inform the users and parents that email scanning would be used to target ads. But if they are not serving ads in Apps for Education then the school is not under any obligation to inform the users even though data mining is still occurring.
As mentioned in the article, the contract that each school makes with Google could supersede the default privacy policy and prohibit the email scanning if the school were to insist on that. My guess is that most schools don't know this is possible and part of the contract states that the schools cannot make public or discuss any aspect of the contracts.
Google has stopped scanning emails and Adsense is disabled nor can it be re-enabled for education, no matter what.
wow. this really puts my rant about Google in perspective.
Hope i did not cause you any grief.
Keeping fighting HARD!
No worries and thank you, I can be frustrating at times, just ask Marvin, I have been fighting breast cancer for a very long while now. Here's a nice little thread about me if your interested.
soggy35 is getting a little too obsessed about this. I actually never recanted on the whole Google doesn't track kids things, I stood by that they didn't from the start, though I was using the latest data from Google's education site which clearly states this. Nor do they display ads, you threw me for a loop when you said they search emails though, but a quick search showed they they no longer do it any longer. I hope Google also gives everyone that option, do you use any Google services?
Here's the thing though, outside of scenarios where Google explicitly knows not to track people, Google is tracking everyone by default. They don't know who is a kid and who isn't unless the kid tells them; if they use a parent's device, Google doesn't know any different. If you assume they're tracking adults and you're comfortable with that, they have to be tracking kids in exactly the same way. I of course use Google services as I use Google like most people do and was a little shocked when I found out years ago about their web history feature, which logs every search you've ever made in Google when you are logged into any Google service:
It's one thing to see your browser history but to see an entire trail going back years, you can see how it builds up a profile. You said recently that you gave 10 Android devices to kids, if they want to download apps on it or use email and login to the Google services, Google doesn't know not to track what they do in a browser. They don't know their identity directly but if they have Facebook or Twitter or whatever, they can probably figure it out. All they need is one link to figure out an identity. You just need to signup to Facebook to see how much data these companies have as they already know a bunch of people you might know just from location and name.
There was a recent case where Google handed someone over to police after finding explicit images in his GMail account. It's tough to criticize that, some have made an attempt:
but how much are they scanning? Are they flagging up intimate pictures of girlfriends/wives and having Google employees take a look at them? Their official stance is they have software hashing only known set of images and that's all they check:
"Each child sexual abuse image is given a unique digital fingerprint which enables our systems to identify those pictures, including in Gmail.
It is important to remember that we only use this technology to identify child sexual abuse imagery — not other email content that could be associated with criminal activity (for example using email to plot a burglary)."
Sounds like Google looks the other way on burglary. Property theft is ok? Oh right, it's Google. But anyway, we know this isn't the case because employees always have some level of access:
People would simply say not to share intimate pictures that way but people sext things all the time. That's the point, they trust the texting service they use, they can't trust the email service they use. What company policies and employees can we trust? It's hard to trust any company but a company like Apple whose business model isn't monetizing data is at least easier to trust with data.
I think almost anyone would say Facebook is untrustworthy with data but they have the same business model as Google. Over 80% of revenue is advertising.
I don't personally think using profiling for targeted ads is particularly harmful, which is why I keep using Google services but some people don't like it.
Aaaaaahhhhhh, I love you, yeppy it's me, still flapping away on the ol'e dock of life. Though I'm currently in the hospital, have been for a few weeks I am surrounded by oodles of children who have adapted me as their hospital mom, so I'm not alone during the day.
Considering all the toys you have at your disposal... is it any wonder? You're better than Santa Claus! Well for most "kids" anyway. sog35 doesn't believe in SC and spoils it for everyone else. I know... not the same argument... "pardon".
My doctor is predominantly a child cancer specialist, they even stuck me in the child's ward. Though I think it's because they mistook me for a 12 year old boy as my hair is only a inch a half long and my chest is flatter then a beer found on the floor of frat house, I think the doctor took me too literally when I told him I needed to get something off of my chest Thank you so much for reaching out to me and I'm so happy to hear from you again, please stick around, we need more lovely people like you at Appleinsider.
So ya dropped Skeuomorphism for the new Flat-Fad... didn't we all? And some would say we didn't have a choice either... for whatever that's worth to ya. Hopefully the pain has subsided for ya... or at least they're still providing those killer (edited: not the best choice of words...sorry!) designer drugs you raved about months back. Yes and naturally... life would be so much better for ya without all that, no doubt about it. But trust me: "flat" is gonna be "in" for a while, so don't worry about "that"...
I hear the cutest jokes here;
Group of four-year-olds were trying very hard to become accustomed to school. The biggest hurdle they faced was that the teacher insisted on NO baby talk!
"You need to use 'Big People' words," she was always reminding them. "John what did you do over the weekend?"
"I went to visit my Nana."
"No, you went to visit your GRANDMOTHER. Use 'Big People' words!" She then asked Mitchell what he had done.
"I took a ride on a choo-choo."
"No, you took a ride on a TRAIN. You must remember to use 'Big People' words," she said. She then asked little Alex what he had done.
"I read a book," he replied.
"That's WONDERFUL!" the teacher said. "What book did you read?"
Alex thought very hard about it, then puffed out his chest with great pride and said, "Winnie the SHIT."
[QUOTE][SIZE=4]The first misstep and they're nailed to the wall, so calm down.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
[@]sog35[/@] - You really want to "nail" me on using that phrase, don't ya? OK... you're right. Google hasn't been "financially" nailed at all if we're talking "chits & cents". But YOU yourself and your persistent posting and links has proven that they are consistently being "nailed to the wall" in the proverbial sense, public trust and perception.
I hate to tell ya (Marvin already did quite well), but you're grasping at very visible low-hanging fruit here... let's call it "Lemons" for your disposition on the matter. The truly dangerous hackers these days are going for the sun-dried and bird-pecked cherries at the top of the tree (I love metaphors... can't ya tell?!). You should be asking questions and investigating the companies that are servicing the tech in the schools. A large amount is farmed out, and even sub-contracted to smaller (or bigger) companies. THAT's where the "vectors" and security weaknesses are that the hackers are going after by the thousands per day. It's also the home PC still on Windows XP (even 7 or 8) and with outdated Java, Flash, and virus definitions, where the real "logging" and "data breaches are. The guys that tap into these "baskets of abundant fruit" i.e. info, definitely "peal" and process every last bit and byte of info to compile marketable lists to make "cherry picking" worth their while.
It's not that you're necessarily "wrong" in your assessment of Google, and you have a lot of things in the "right" column to be sure. Most of all that we have to be diligent and support reform in what happens to our personal data. We have to be recognize that the entire Internet runs on ad support, so we have to be careful where and with whom we freely share a part of ourselves to use those services proffered. You will never find me against thoughtful reflection before someone does something like sign up for a blog or a service of any kind... so don't pin that on me.
And to a certain degree... I will agree with you, that "forcing" anyone to use a platform... and I don't care if it's Apple, MS, Google or the newest Timbuktu distro of Linux... is not right. I believe that at this point in Tech Time... we should be working harder than ever towards "platform independence". Full stop. And that statement even includes my beloved Apple "platform" FYI.
From one of my favorite Global news sources... The Guardian:
[I]Unless we demand changes, Big Tech will continue to profit off our personal information – with our benighted permission. If you aren't careful, every time you log on, all your activity could be up for grabs. Photograph: PhotoAlto/Alamy[/I]
As security expert Bruce Schneier (a friend) has archly observed, [I][B]"Surveillance is the business model of the internet."[/B][/I] [COLOR=red]I don't expect this to change unless and until external realities force a change – and I'm not holding my breath.[/COLOR]
Instead, the depressing news just seems to be getting worse. Google confirmed this week what many people had assumed: [I][B][COLOR=red]even if you're not a Gmail user,[/COLOR] your email to someone who does use their services will be scanned by the all-seeing search and the advertising company's increasingly smart machines.[/B][/I] [/QUOTE]
See. I'm supporting your argument... somewhat. Because notice in red, you, I, or your children have NO CHOICE if someone we communicate with, is using Google... or any other Internet companies services.
In fact... even if you don't have a bloody computer or phone... you could very well be profiled already on the Internet containing a huge amount of info/facts on who you are... including pictures. Not only public pictures in security systems (what companies have access to those?), but very possibly "tagged" within collections like those found on Flickr (Yahoo), Facebook/Instagram, or titled with your name on Dropbox or OneDrive.
Unfortunately for those like yourself that desire perfect privacy and data protection... your just [B]"Winnie the Shit[/B]"*** out of luck unless your living in a cave. Oh yeah... and then there's satellites... :no:
*** [@]Relic[/@] - I just had to use that somewhere! Still chucklin' here... :smokey:
Edited: in my haste to throw in Winnie the Shit... I failed to finish the sentence to say that you should be preaching just as relentlessly at your elected representatives as you do here. And until you/we manage to get the real "piggies" working to fix this, we're all just a "bowl of fresh picked cherries" to be enjoyed and eaten... preferably with Yoghurt (don't ask!).
In fact... even if you don't have a bloody computer or phone... you could very well be profiled already on the Internet containing a huge amount of info/facts on who you are... including pictures.
That's true, there are lots of companies with access to sensitive data. Internet service providers for people not using encrypted connections have even more access to info because every single piece of data has to pass through their servers before it even gets to Google - this might be the motivation in moving everything to SSL encryption. Banks have huge amounts of data too, all your purchase records. That always gets me when bank employees (especially ones that look like they just finished school) say things like 'ok I'm looking at your bank statements just now' and I'm like I don't even know you but you're trawling through my recent purchases.
There are varying levels of info that people want different companies to have. Private healthcare can know about your intimate surgery but not the bank. The bank can know about the level of debt you have but not an advertising company. Search engines are unique because they're almost mapping your thoughts and activity in a timeline. If you made a parallel in real life of what Google and others are like, it would freak people out.
Imagine that you go out and someone is sat outside your house, they know where you live (equivalent to companies knowing IPs or addresses entered). They see you walking out with your family so they know what everyone looks like (equivalent to matching online activity from multiple people from the same IP and social networks). They follow where you go next and see what shops you go into (equivalent to tracking searches). You go into a store, they can't follow you but they've put promotional stalls in store and they watch what you're doing (equivalent to on-site ads and tracking cookies). You ask advice in store for the best products (equivalent to search or comparison features on sites so they know what products you're interested in). The person can follow where the kids go to school or parents go to work (equivalent to tracking logins or ads again in multiple locations).
If someone did that in real life and compiled that data over a month and then presented it to a family showing all the info that a complete stranger has on them, that would completely freak them out. They might even call the police because it's tantamount to stalking. The only way people aren't freaked out by it online is that people don't know the extent of it. It's the same with the government monitoring. If we hadn't found out, nobody would be talking about it.
But in the end, the objection comes down to perceived harm. Even if you feel uneasy with people knowing things, what's the harm they will do to you, even in the real life example? Google's stance is along the lines of 'if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear'. It's commendable that Google has operated so long with data on so many people and yet their databases haven't been hacked unlike countless other companies. Nor have they caused widespread harm to all those billions of people. People fear the potential for harm, which is fair enough and people should be more responsible with their data online and hopefully companies won't abuse the data they do get. It's another of those unavoidable conflicts between freedom and security.
Please be respectful to the kid and send feedback, this is in Beta.
Story: I was in contact with the dev back during the FreeFreehand days after Adobe had killed FH, and he was just starting a project to replace Freehand with a clone of sorts. I had a number of verbal tussles with other backers and people, specifically because most were hoping and pining for the "clone" of Freehand. I advised against doing anything in the way of a clone, and that any "new" vector software should stake out new ground, re-imagine the tools and GUI, "and look into" being web-based... and/or at the very least built with modern frameworks and coding for the future of design, not yesterday's.
Not claiming that he took even one word of my advise at all... but I'm happy regardless that he's decided to go this route rather than work his butt off on a dead-end software distribution model and code base. The effort and the idea has a ton of merit and potential IMHO.
Note: My allegiance to Macromedia's Freehand is because I also made my living with it since v1 and trained countless others to be able to do the same. It's death was a hard pill to swallow, and I admire the efforts of those that tried to raise it from the dead any way they could. However I'm also a realist and guessed (correctly) that Adobe would make overtures, smiling acquiescence and proclaiming understanding of our pain... but on the ground nothing would happen with it. Also as a realist, I have to make a living and since Photoshop and later Lightroom were in my toolbox with years of usage, I grudgingly picked over Illustrator and became quite proficient at it.
Once I got over my hate that is... and "that's" the lesson I had to learn, that many on these forums should give a try sometime...
I really like Gravit, I've been playing with it for a little while now. This just shows that in a not so distance future, web apps will be just as powerful as their desktop counterparts. A lot of us are confused as to why anyone would want to buy a ChromeBook, it's just a browser. Well sites like this tells us that the internet has a lot more to offer then just porn and cat videos. A ChromeBook can successfully replace most consumer level laptops as these web apps provide most users with everything they need. An iPad is a good alternative as well.
Regarding privacy. How many of you logged into this web site did so using TAILS (the amnesiac incognito live system)? Just by logging in even using TAILS you have identified yourself in some way.
Chromebooks are great tools. Using one doesn't necessarily mean all of your life will be exposed to Google. You don't need to use their e-mail service. You don't need to use their online word processors or other services. You can use others. The thing is, you will be identifying yourself to whomever you choose for those services. You identify yourself using Mac computers too.
Unless you hack your MAC address, use an anonymizer, encrypt everything before you send it, and never log into sites with any type of identifier, you will be tracked in some way. I'm sure there are ways to remain anonymous on the internet. Using them limits your ability to access and utilize all of the cool stuff on the internet. I honestly don't feel like creating a new false identity every time I want to watch a video or post on a forum somewhere. For now I've got five plug-ins or extensions in my Chromium browser that work to prevent cookies and identifying information to be shared about me.
By the time any of us learned about tracking and how it would allow any agency with the data about our lives to totally create a profile of us, it was too late. All any of us can do now is become invisible. Our habits and preferences are already logged somewhere. All it will take now is for some agency to create a great filtering program to analyse us and poof, we're caught.
I really like Gravit, I've been playing with it for a little while now. This just shows that in a not so distance future, web apps will be just as powerful as their desktop counterparts. A lot of us are confused as to why anyone would want to buy a ChromeBook, it's just a browser. Well sites like this tells us that the internet has a lot more to offer then just porn and cat videos. A ChromeBook can successfully replace most consumer level laptops as these web apps provide most users with everything they need. An iPad is a good alternative as well.
Be sure to give feedback to the dev on how it's working out for you on ChromeOS/Chromebook. No doubt he'll be thankful with your kind of experience to back up your critique.
By the time any of us learned about tracking and how it would allow any agency with the data about our lives to totally create a profile of us, it was too late. All any of us can do now is become invisible. Our habits and preferences are already logged somewhere. All it will take now is for some agency to create a great filtering program to analyse us and poof, we're caught.
The main concern people have is not about the lack of privacy but who to trust with what information. Like I said earlier, people have sensitive medical information they wouldn't tell their bank. They'll have financial information they wouldn't tell their doctor and so on. There are companies whose business model is to monetize data and those include Google and Facebook. Apple has a different business model - they charge more for hardware.
About 90% of Apple's revenue is from hardware sales, 10% is accessories, software and iTunes. iAds might be in that 10% somewhere.
At least 91% of Google's revenue is from monetizing data / advertising.
At least 88% of Facebook's revenue is from monetizing data / advertising.
You don't have to use Google services when you get a Chrome or Android device but that's what their business model is counting on you doing and it's working. Some people prefer to go with companies that don't have a motive to monetize your data. If you choose to use Google services anyway, you could well be in the same situation but you aren't coerced into using Google services the same way nor to the same extent. You don't have to use unified logins that are used for tracking to download apps for example.
Some people think that monetizing data is always a bad thing but it can be done ethically. If you are looking for something to buy and Google or Facebook tracks your search and simply gives you a deal, then that's what you were looking for anyway so no harm done. If they are building up a profile and comparing it to similar profiles with buying trends and recommending products you aren't looking for, that's getting a bit more invasive. If, like Facebook, they are profiling your real life connections and suggesting things based on that like gift ideas then for some that might be a step too far. It's often forgotten about but Google has a social network too with half a billion users:
They don't seem very active though, which makes you wonder why they signed up the accounts. I imagine it'll have something to do with Android adoption. Google wants that social media data and that puts them in competition with companies with the same business model.
"It wasn't long before "a couple of Google executives came over to see if there might be a way to work with or even buy TheFacebook," Kirkpatrick reports in "The Facebook Effect."
The meeting didn't go anywhere, but the issue rose again in the fall of 2007. Google's top ad salesman, Tim Armstrong, convinced the company's board to let him pursue a deal in which Google would serve Facebook's international ads.
"The board even approved talks about buying [Facebook], if it made sense," writes Kirkpatrick. Google never got the deal, but its offer to invest in Facebook at a $15 billion valuation reshaped Mark Zuckerberg's company forever."
Microsoft tried to buy them too. Some people wouldn't trust Facebook at all but would trust the companies that tried to buy them who would have operated it the same way because they have the same motive - to monetize data.
The main concern people have is not about the lack of privacy but who to trust with what information..
Excellent all-around posts Marvin and to be honest I do share some of your privacy concerns. Thus my use of Ghostery, specific Facebook blockers and "guest browsing" on my Chromebook for sensitive searches. Curious to get your input on a couple of specifics.
Facebook seems much more aggressive than Google in facial recognition and friendships to associate "you" with places and events where you would not have expected to be followed. What leads you to believe Google would have taken the same route had they purchased Facebook some years ago? Google pointedly blocks facial recognition in Glass and even their "Find my Face" feature on Google+ is significantly more privacy friendly and requires much more in the way of permissions than Facebook does. I'll concede too that Google's previous FTC interactions might help Google be more cognizant of privacy issues than Facebook has shown.
Secondly what about Google's stored profiles and how they're used concerns you or should concern others? Is something being done with that data other than enabling "better"advertising? Is it perhaps more the possibility that someday Google might change hands or some other very significant thing happen to open your information to other uses, but there's little if anything to factually be fearful of now?
Unlike true data-monetizers like Acxiom or Experian or even some State and Federal agencies I can't see how anything Google has in your personal portfolio could have any effect on any part of your life other than the types of ads you see. They can't hurt your credit score, impact your employment possibilities, cause your insurance rates to rise/fall, affect your access to medical care or negatively impact your finances (unlike Acxiom or Experian) unless they're doing something you know of that I've not happened to read about.
Third, what do you see as a viable alternative to advertising revenue to make sites like AI possible or pay for good dependable search engines and thus perhaps avoid personal data collection and tracking.
FWIW my own personal privacy efforts are simply to take back a bit of my on-line life. I've had an instance of something I'd said elsewhere(college sports related) leading to a bit of stalker-ish behavior from an unfriendly who got a little too close and aggressive for my comfort. In any event I'm now a little more careful of what I share on-line, but my fear isn't due to Google specifically. The details could have been found almost as easily with Bing or DuckDuckGo. Add to that keeping research on a potential issue from possibly affecting a pending insurance policy change, and where I can say with complete confidence I don't worry about Google being the one to reveal it by sharing my personal search details with the insurer.
Facebook seems much more aggressive than Google in facial recognition and friendships to associate "you" with places and events where you would not have expected to be followed. What leads you to believe Google would have taken the same route had they purchased Facebook some years ago?
Referring to the companies as singular entities as though they each have a singular persona is the only way to be concise in discussions but this isn't how they operate. These are companies with many thousands of employees. The role of the employees is to maximize the chosen business model. Facebook and Google have the same business model. I wouldn't expect every decision made by each company's employees to be the same but if Google had bought Facebook, I'd assume they'd hire the Facebook employees who would make largely the same decisions they have made while at Facebook because they are making those decisions to get the best return on the same business model.
Google's social media presence is weak, their strength is in search. Facebook doesn't deal with search, they are all about social media. If Google had bought Facebook, I'd expect them to be as strong in social media as Facebook is now and that would have a different set of decisions than they make when it comes to search. You can only really determine what would happen for sure after it happens. This is not exclusive to Google either, if Microsoft or Apple had bought Facebook, I'd expect some of the same things but in those instances, they don't have the same motive as their primary revenue streams are from hardware/software. They could easily remove all 3rd party advertising from the social networks and simply advertise their own brand. Apple could actually turn iMessage into a social network (if they made it platform-independent).
Secondly what about Google's stored profiles and how they're used concerns you or should concern others? Is something being done with that data other than enabling "better"advertising? Is it perhaps more the possibility that someday Google might change hands or some other very significant thing happen to open your information to other uses, but there's little if anything to factually be fearful of now?
Unlike true data-monetizers like Acxiom or Experian or even some State and Federal agencies I can't see how anything Google has in your personal portfolio could have any effect on any part of your life other than the types of ads you see. They can't hurt your credit score, impact your employment possibilities, cause your insurance rates to rise/fall, affect your access to medical care or negatively impact your finances (unlike Acxiom or Experian) unless they're doing something you know of that I've not happened to read about.
Google's present and past use of the data doesn't particularly concern me but I think the real world parallel I posted earlier is a reason why people would feel uncomfortable with it. If Google did in real life what they do online, they would surely be labelled as stalkers. In the real world, Google and others would get a restraining order. When it comes to online activity, users are volunteering the information but partly because what goes on behind the scenes is unknown. In the real world, it's harder to do that invisible tracking. It's comforting to think that Google only uses our data vaguely for ads but are they obliged to stick to that and are they transparent about exactly the processes the data is going through?
Google's storage of data is concerning for the future if it ever did get hacked somehow. This has happened to huge companies. Imagine that every search term anyone ever typed into a search engine was leaked along with a vague profile that could be used to identify individuals. The people in Pakistan would absolutely feel right to be worried:
[VIDEO]
It's also what can be implied from the data. There was a case here where police used search engine queries to reach the wrong conclusion about a criminal case:
They assumed that the girl had been searching for acid attack stories and poured acid on herself for attention when in fact she was attacked by someone she'd considered a close friend.
Third, what do you see as a viable alternative to advertising revenue to make sites like AI possible or pay for good dependable search engines and thus perhaps avoid personal data collection and tracking.
I think the app/IAP model has proven itself to be a viable alternative to advertising. AI has a subscription app:
When I see a paywall on a website, I pretty much close it immediately but if I have to pay $0.99 for an app or buy an inexpensive IAP, it doesn't have the same effect. The problem taking that to the web is that people tend to jump between sites a lot so having each site contained in an app makes that harder. Advertising is an unavoidable business model when it comes to young people because they don't have money to spend online.
Advertising could do with being regulated the way that TV advertising is. These ads about getting ripped in 4 weeks or Google paying someone x amount per hour would never be allowed on TV. Online tracking should also be treated the same way offline tracking would be.
When I see a paywall on a website, I pretty much close it immediately but if I have to pay $0.99 for an app or buy an inexpensive IAP, it doesn't have the same effect. The problem taking that to the web is that people tend to jump between sites a lot so having each site contained in an app makes that harder. Advertising is an unavoidable business model when it comes to young people because they don't have money to spend online.
I got the app. I paid for the subscription. The app only shows the first 10 comments. Comments are what I come for when visiting this site. And I do that almost daily. But I can't reply to the comments in the app, I can't even properly read them as there is no indented quoting, no font size adjustment, no hyperlinks, no option to quote, post, or whatever. Just to read the first 10 posts. The app is not for me.
The app is done somewhat nicely but sorely lacks of making it usable. It does do what it's advertised to do: reading the site without seeing any ads.. Truth be told, I never see the ads, due to ad blocking and always going straight to the forum, not the homepage.
But I do get the point of advertising. Seen a lot over my lifetime, but never actually bought something because I remembered the ad while shopping. Do people actually remember ads to begin with? Or is it all marketing, all needed to get the name of the brand out?
Even if I see a 'Google page' and it has an ad of a product I might want to learn about I simply copy/paste the URL or type in the domain name myself, just so the advertiser doesn't have to pay for the ad. I'm pathetic, aren't I?
Comments
I see that now. I am still unclear about the timeline. I appears that Google originally had a no data mining or ads policy for students, then they decided to offer an ad supported model, and now reversed that policy back to the original more protected privacy policy. Anyway it is good that they currently do not scan the students.
I dunno - at least netbooks were somewhat useful without a network connection.
You can still do a lot offline with a Chromebook and now that they are very popular offline apps are popping up more frequently. Plus installing Linux like Ubuntu alongside Chrome OS is extremely easy if you really need something that works offline. Really though, a Chromebook wouldn't be a smart buy if for any reason a potential buyer doesn't have a stable Internet connection, so your observation is kind of silly. When was the last time you were offline though, really? I mean my Nokia 2520, Nokia 1020, Google Pixel, my daughters HP 11 Chromebook, iPhone 5s, iPad Mini Air, my sons new Nokia 930, HP 11 Chromebook, Nexus 7 and my husbands Lenovo X1, iPhone 5s, new Porsche-Design P'9882 all have LTE with hotspot, plus we have fiber with a DSL backup line at home. The chances of her not having Internet at any given time, is very, very slim. All these LTE lines aren't as crazy as you might think, our mobile providers only charges us 10 bucks extra a month for each additional SIM, up to 3 per phone mobile, used for tablets, 3 SIM's actually only costs 20 extra. It's called MultiSurf See -> https://shop.orange.ch/subscriptions/?lang=en cool huh!
Google is a publicly traded company with a business model that operates on advertising. What any company tries to do is make the best success of the business model they choose. They push it as far as they can get away with. Fans on the outside try to project a persona onto companies to make them feel better and make definitive statements on their behalf like "children aren't tracked, period". Then when it's found otherwise, it changes to 'oh, well they don't do it now so just ignore that they tried to, they're still good people'.
I believe some of the people at Google are good people and the founders at least seem ethical but as a whole it is a publicly traded company that hires people to promote a business model that monetizes people's information and that will be evil at times. Google needs to be treated as objectively as any other company in order to have a 'balanced' discussion.
Your right of course, it's just that soggy35 is getting a little too obsessed about this. I actually never recanted on the whole Google doesn't track kids things, I stood by that they didn't from the start, though I was using the latest data from Google's education site which clearly states this. Nor do they display ads, you threw me for a loop when you said they search emails though, but a quick search showed they they no longer do it any longer. I hope Google also gives everyone that option, do you use any Google services?
I see that now. I am still unclear about the timeline. I appears that Google originally had a no data mining or ads policy for students, then they decided to offer an ad supported model, and now reversed that policy back to the original more protected privacy policy. Anyway it is good that they currently do not scan the students.
Agreed and the zero ads policy is pretty great, even if the schools were to use normal laptops the children would be exposed too ads if the school allowed access to Google search, on a Chromebook there is none, this is defiantly a good thing.
Good find.
I is not immediately clear to from reading the article what exactly happens when the student is logged in with their student ID but using other Google services outside of Apps for Education such as YouTube. It doesn't explain if the student email scanning data is currently being used for targeted ads at this time or if it is in preparation for such activities at a later date. I was surprised that Google offered an ad supported Education model to the schools, which makes no sense to me, but if true then obviously they would need to data mine even though they don't know who the students really are since they are anonymous. In the case that the schools were using the ad option, it is up to the schools to inform the users and parents that email scanning would be used to target ads. But if they are not serving ads in Apps for Education then the school is not under any obligation to inform the users even though data mining is still occurring.
As mentioned in the article, the contract that each school makes with Google could supersede the default privacy policy and prohibit the email scanning if the school were to insist on that. My guess is that most schools don't know this is possible and part of the contract states that the schools cannot make public or discuss any aspect of the contracts.
Google has stopped scanning emails and Adsense is disabled nor can it be re-enabled for education, no matter what.
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/04/30/google-stops-data-mining-students-email/
http://googleenterprise.blogspot.ch/2014/04/protecting-students-with-google-apps.html
wow. this really puts my rant about Google in perspective.
Hope i did not cause you any grief.
Keeping fighting HARD!
No worries and thank you, I can be frustrating at times, just ask Marvin, I have been fighting breast cancer for a very long while now. Here's a nice little thread about me if your interested.
Here's the thing though, outside of scenarios where Google explicitly knows not to track people, Google is tracking everyone by default. They don't know who is a kid and who isn't unless the kid tells them; if they use a parent's device, Google doesn't know any different. If you assume they're tracking adults and you're comfortable with that, they have to be tracking kids in exactly the same way. I of course use Google services as I use Google like most people do and was a little shocked when I found out years ago about their web history feature, which logs every search you've ever made in Google when you are logged into any Google service:
http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-clear-your-google-search-history-on-android/
http://www.google.com/history
It's one thing to see your browser history but to see an entire trail going back years, you can see how it builds up a profile. You said recently that you gave 10 Android devices to kids, if they want to download apps on it or use email and login to the Google services, Google doesn't know not to track what they do in a browser. They don't know their identity directly but if they have Facebook or Twitter or whatever, they can probably figure it out. All they need is one link to figure out an identity. You just need to signup to Facebook to see how much data these companies have as they already know a bunch of people you might know just from location and name.
There was a recent case where Google handed someone over to police after finding explicit images in his GMail account. It's tough to criticize that, some have made an attempt:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/05/do-we-want-google-to-have-this-much-power-child-pornographer-caught-by-gmail-scan/
but how much are they scanning? Are they flagging up intimate pictures of girlfriends/wives and having Google employees take a look at them? Their official stance is they have software hashing only known set of images and that's all they check:
http://gizmodo.com/how-google-hunts-down-child-porn-in-your-inbox-1616310140
"Each child sexual abuse image is given a unique digital fingerprint which enables our systems to identify those pictures, including in Gmail.
It is important to remember that we only use this technology to identify child sexual abuse imagery — not other email content that could be associated with criminal activity (for example using email to plot a burglary)."
Sounds like Google looks the other way on burglary. Property theft is ok? Oh right, it's Google. But anyway, we know this isn't the case because employees always have some level of access:
http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-teens-spied-on-chats
People would simply say not to share intimate pictures that way but people sext things all the time. That's the point, they trust the texting service they use, they can't trust the email service they use. What company policies and employees can we trust? It's hard to trust any company but a company like Apple whose business model isn't monetizing data is at least easier to trust with data.
I think almost anyone would say Facebook is untrustworthy with data but they have the same business model as Google. Over 80% of revenue is advertising.
I don't personally think using profiling for targeted ads is particularly harmful, which is why I keep using Google services but some people don't like it.
Considering all the toys you have at your disposal... is it any wonder? You're better than Santa Claus! Well for most "kids" anyway. sog35 doesn't believe in SC and spoils it for everyone else. I know... not the same argument... "pardon".
So ya dropped Skeuomorphism for the new Flat-Fad... didn't we all? And some would say we didn't have a choice either... for whatever that's worth to ya. Hopefully the pain has subsided for ya... or at least they're still providing those
killer(edited: not the best choice of words...sorry!) designer drugs you raved about months back. Yes and naturally... life would be so much better for ya without all that, no doubt about it. But trust me: "flat" is gonna be "in" for a while, so don't worry about "that"...^^^^^ ROFL!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^
[@]sog35[/@] - You really want to "nail" me on using that phrase, don't ya? OK... you're right. Google hasn't been "financially" nailed at all if we're talking "chits & cents". But YOU yourself and your persistent posting and links has proven that they are consistently being "nailed to the wall" in the proverbial sense, public trust and perception.
I hate to tell ya (Marvin already did quite well), but you're grasping at very visible low-hanging fruit here... let's call it "Lemons" for your disposition on the matter. The truly dangerous hackers these days are going for the sun-dried and bird-pecked cherries at the top of the tree (I love metaphors... can't ya tell?!). You should be asking questions and investigating the companies that are servicing the tech in the schools. A large amount is farmed out, and even sub-contracted to smaller (or bigger) companies. THAT's where the "vectors" and security weaknesses are that the hackers are going after by the thousands per day. It's also the home PC still on Windows XP (even 7 or 8) and with outdated Java, Flash, and virus definitions, where the real "logging" and "data breaches are. The guys that tap into these "baskets of abundant fruit" i.e. info, definitely "peal" and process every last bit and byte of info to compile marketable lists to make "cherry picking" worth their while.
It's not that you're necessarily "wrong" in your assessment of Google, and you have a lot of things in the "right" column to be sure. Most of all that we have to be diligent and support reform in what happens to our personal data. We have to be recognize that the entire Internet runs on ad support, so we have to be careful where and with whom we freely share a part of ourselves to use those services proffered. You will never find me against thoughtful reflection before someone does something like sign up for a blog or a service of any kind... so don't pin that on me.
And to a certain degree... I will agree with you, that "forcing" anyone to use a platform... and I don't care if it's Apple, MS, Google or the newest Timbuktu distro of Linux... is not right. I believe that at this point in Tech Time... we should be working harder than ever towards "platform independence". Full stop. And that statement even includes my beloved Apple "platform" FYI.
From one of my favorite Global news sources... The Guardian:
[QUOTE][B][URL=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/corporations-google-should-not-sell-customer-data]As we sweat government surveillance, companies like Google collect our data[/URL][/B]
[I]Unless we demand changes, Big Tech will continue to profit off our personal information – with our benighted permission.
If you aren't careful, every time you log on, all your activity could be up for grabs. Photograph: PhotoAlto/Alamy[/I]
As security expert Bruce Schneier (a friend) has archly observed, [I][B]"Surveillance is the business model of the internet."[/B][/I] [COLOR=red]I don't expect this to change unless and until external realities force a change – and I'm not holding my breath.[/COLOR]
Instead, the depressing news just seems to be getting worse. Google confirmed this week what many people had assumed: [I][B][COLOR=red]even if you're not a Gmail user,[/COLOR] your email to someone who does use their services will be scanned by the all-seeing search and the advertising company's increasingly smart machines.[/B][/I] [/QUOTE]
See. I'm supporting your argument... somewhat. Because notice in red, you, I, or your children have NO CHOICE if someone we communicate with, is using Google... or any other Internet companies services.
In fact... even if you don't have a bloody computer or phone... you could very well be profiled already on the Internet containing a huge amount of info/facts on who you are... including pictures. Not only public pictures in security systems (what companies have access to those?), but very possibly "tagged" within collections like those found on Flickr (Yahoo), Facebook/Instagram, or titled with your name on Dropbox or OneDrive.
Unfortunately for those like yourself that desire perfect privacy and data protection... your just [B]"Winnie the Shit[/B]"*** out of luck unless your living in a cave. Oh yeah... and then there's satellites... :no:
*** [@]Relic[/@] - I just had to use that somewhere! Still chucklin' here... :smokey:
Edited: in my haste to throw in Winnie the Shit... I failed to finish the sentence to say that you should be preaching just as relentlessly at your elected representatives as you do here. And until you/we manage to get the real "piggies" working to fix this, we're all just a "bowl of fresh picked cherries" to be enjoyed and eaten... preferably with Yoghurt (don't ask!).
[@]Marvin[/@], [@]Relic[/@] - some damn fine posts!
That's true, there are lots of companies with access to sensitive data. Internet service providers for people not using encrypted connections have even more access to info because every single piece of data has to pass through their servers before it even gets to Google - this might be the motivation in moving everything to SSL encryption. Banks have huge amounts of data too, all your purchase records. That always gets me when bank employees (especially ones that look like they just finished school) say things like 'ok I'm looking at your bank statements just now' and I'm like I don't even know you but you're trawling through my recent purchases.
There are varying levels of info that people want different companies to have. Private healthcare can know about your intimate surgery but not the bank. The bank can know about the level of debt you have but not an advertising company. Search engines are unique because they're almost mapping your thoughts and activity in a timeline. If you made a parallel in real life of what Google and others are like, it would freak people out.
Imagine that you go out and someone is sat outside your house, they know where you live (equivalent to companies knowing IPs or addresses entered). They see you walking out with your family so they know what everyone looks like (equivalent to matching online activity from multiple people from the same IP and social networks). They follow where you go next and see what shops you go into (equivalent to tracking searches). You go into a store, they can't follow you but they've put promotional stalls in store and they watch what you're doing (equivalent to on-site ads and tracking cookies). You ask advice in store for the best products (equivalent to search or comparison features on sites so they know what products you're interested in). The person can follow where the kids go to school or parents go to work (equivalent to tracking logins or ads again in multiple locations).
If someone did that in real life and compiled that data over a month and then presented it to a family showing all the info that a complete stranger has on them, that would completely freak them out. They might even call the police because it's tantamount to stalking. The only way people aren't freaked out by it online is that people don't know the extent of it. It's the same with the government monitoring. If we hadn't found out, nobody would be talking about it.
But in the end, the objection comes down to perceived harm. Even if you feel uneasy with people knowing things, what's the harm they will do to you, even in the real life example? Google's stance is along the lines of 'if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear'. It's commendable that Google has operated so long with data on so many people and yet their databases haven't been hacked unlike countless other companies. Nor have they caused widespread harm to all those billions of people. People fear the potential for harm, which is fair enough and people should be more responsible with their data online and hopefully companies won't abuse the data they do get. It's another of those unavoidable conflicts between freedom and security.
[@]Relic[/@], [@]mstone[/@] and anyone else interested in new graphic vector software for Mac OSX and ChromeOS, check out Gravit.
Here's from the dev's under construction website:
---------------------
To Download Gravit for your system and/or view the changelog, please follow this [URL=https://github.com/quasado/gravit-hub/releases]link[/URL].
Note that you can also try and run Gravit right[URL=http://hub.gravit.io/browser] in your browser[/URL] (Use a modern one please) or you can install it for [URL=https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gravit/pdagghjnpkeagmlbilmjmclfhjeaapaa]Chrome and Chrome OS[/URL].
--------------------
Please be respectful to the kid and send feedback, this is in Beta.
Story: I was in contact with the dev back during the FreeFreehand days after Adobe had killed FH, and he was just starting a project to replace Freehand with a clone of sorts. I had a number of verbal tussles with other backers and people, specifically because most were hoping and pining for the "clone" of Freehand. I advised against doing anything in the way of a clone, and that any "new" vector software should stake out new ground, re-imagine the tools and GUI, "and look into" being web-based... and/or at the very least built with modern frameworks and coding for the future of design, not yesterday's.
Not claiming that he took even one word of my advise at all... but I'm happy regardless that he's decided to go this route rather than work his butt off on a dead-end software distribution model and code base. The effort and the idea has a ton of merit and potential IMHO.
Note: My allegiance to Macromedia's Freehand is because I also made my living with it since v1 and trained countless others to be able to do the same. It's death was a hard pill to swallow, and I admire the efforts of those that tried to raise it from the dead any way they could. However I'm also a realist and guessed (correctly) that Adobe would make overtures, smiling acquiescence and proclaiming understanding of our pain... but on the ground nothing would happen with it. Also as a realist, I have to make a living and since Photoshop and later Lightroom were in my toolbox with years of usage, I grudgingly picked over Illustrator and became quite proficient at it.
Once I got over my hate that is... and "that's" the lesson I had to learn, that many on these forums should give a try sometime...
Regarding privacy. How many of you logged into this web site did so using TAILS (the amnesiac incognito live system)? Just by logging in even using TAILS you have identified yourself in some way.
Chromebooks are great tools. Using one doesn't necessarily mean all of your life will be exposed to Google. You don't need to use their e-mail service. You don't need to use their online word processors or other services. You can use others. The thing is, you will be identifying yourself to whomever you choose for those services. You identify yourself using Mac computers too.
Unless you hack your MAC address, use an anonymizer, encrypt everything before you send it, and never log into sites with any type of identifier, you will be tracked in some way. I'm sure there are ways to remain anonymous on the internet. Using them limits your ability to access and utilize all of the cool stuff on the internet. I honestly don't feel like creating a new false identity every time I want to watch a video or post on a forum somewhere. For now I've got five plug-ins or extensions in my Chromium browser that work to prevent cookies and identifying information to be shared about me.
By the time any of us learned about tracking and how it would allow any agency with the data about our lives to totally create a profile of us, it was too late. All any of us can do now is become invisible. Our habits and preferences are already logged somewhere. All it will take now is for some agency to create a great filtering program to analyse us and poof, we're caught.
Be sure to give feedback to the dev on how it's working out for you on ChromeOS/Chromebook. No doubt he'll be thankful with your kind of experience to back up your critique.
The main concern people have is not about the lack of privacy but who to trust with what information. Like I said earlier, people have sensitive medical information they wouldn't tell their bank. They'll have financial information they wouldn't tell their doctor and so on. There are companies whose business model is to monetize data and those include Google and Facebook. Apple has a different business model - they charge more for hardware.
About 90% of Apple's revenue is from hardware sales, 10% is accessories, software and iTunes. iAds might be in that 10% somewhere.
At least 91% of Google's revenue is from monetizing data / advertising.
At least 88% of Facebook's revenue is from monetizing data / advertising.
You don't have to use Google services when you get a Chrome or Android device but that's what their business model is counting on you doing and it's working. Some people prefer to go with companies that don't have a motive to monetize your data. If you choose to use Google services anyway, you could well be in the same situation but you aren't coerced into using Google services the same way nor to the same extent. You don't have to use unified logins that are used for tracking to download apps for example.
Some people think that monetizing data is always a bad thing but it can be done ethically. If you are looking for something to buy and Google or Facebook tracks your search and simply gives you a deal, then that's what you were looking for anyway so no harm done. If they are building up a profile and comparing it to similar profiles with buying trends and recommending products you aren't looking for, that's getting a bit more invasive. If, like Facebook, they are profiling your real life connections and suggesting things based on that like gift ideas then for some that might be a step too far. It's often forgotten about but Google has a social network too with half a billion users:
https://plus.google.com/+GooglePlusDaily/posts/YZFan2kQh7h
They don't seem very active though, which makes you wonder why they signed up the accounts. I imagine it'll have something to do with Android adoption. Google wants that social media data and that puts them in competition with companies with the same business model.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8510738/Facebook-confesses-to-Google-smear-bid.html
Google tried to buy them in the past:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-companies-that-tried-to-buy-facebook-2014-3
"It wasn't long before "a couple of Google executives came over to see if there might be a way to work with or even buy TheFacebook," Kirkpatrick reports in "The Facebook Effect."
The meeting didn't go anywhere, but the issue rose again in the fall of 2007. Google's top ad salesman, Tim Armstrong, convinced the company's board to let him pursue a deal in which Google would serve Facebook's international ads.
"The board even approved talks about buying [Facebook], if it made sense," writes Kirkpatrick. Google never got the deal, but its offer to invest in Facebook at a $15 billion valuation reshaped Mark Zuckerberg's company forever."
Microsoft tried to buy them too. Some people wouldn't trust Facebook at all but would trust the companies that tried to buy them who would have operated it the same way because they have the same motive - to monetize data.
Excellent all-around posts Marvin and to be honest I do share some of your privacy concerns. Thus my use of Ghostery, specific Facebook blockers and "guest browsing" on my Chromebook for sensitive searches. Curious to get your input on a couple of specifics.
Facebook seems much more aggressive than Google in facial recognition and friendships to associate "you" with places and events where you would not have expected to be followed. What leads you to believe Google would have taken the same route had they purchased Facebook some years ago? Google pointedly blocks facial recognition in Glass and even their "Find my Face" feature on Google+ is significantly more privacy friendly and requires much more in the way of permissions than Facebook does. I'll concede too that Google's previous FTC interactions might help Google be more cognizant of privacy issues than Facebook has shown.
Secondly what about Google's stored profiles and how they're used concerns you or should concern others? Is something being done with that data other than enabling "better"advertising? Is it perhaps more the possibility that someday Google might change hands or some other very significant thing happen to open your information to other uses, but there's little if anything to factually be fearful of now?
Unlike true data-monetizers like Acxiom or Experian or even some State and Federal agencies I can't see how anything Google has in your personal portfolio could have any effect on any part of your life other than the types of ads you see. They can't hurt your credit score, impact your employment possibilities, cause your insurance rates to rise/fall, affect your access to medical care or negatively impact your finances (unlike Acxiom or Experian) unless they're doing something you know of that I've not happened to read about.
Third, what do you see as a viable alternative to advertising revenue to make sites like AI possible or pay for good dependable search engines and thus perhaps avoid personal data collection and tracking.
FWIW my own personal privacy efforts are simply to take back a bit of my on-line life. I've had an instance of something I'd said elsewhere(college sports related) leading to a bit of stalker-ish behavior from an unfriendly who got a little too close and aggressive for my comfort. In any event I'm now a little more careful of what I share on-line, but my fear isn't due to Google specifically. The details could have been found almost as easily with Bing or DuckDuckGo. Add to that keeping research on a potential issue from possibly affecting a pending insurance policy change, and where I can say with complete confidence I don't worry about Google being the one to reveal it by sharing my personal search details with the insurer.
Referring to the companies as singular entities as though they each have a singular persona is the only way to be concise in discussions but this isn't how they operate. These are companies with many thousands of employees. The role of the employees is to maximize the chosen business model. Facebook and Google have the same business model. I wouldn't expect every decision made by each company's employees to be the same but if Google had bought Facebook, I'd assume they'd hire the Facebook employees who would make largely the same decisions they have made while at Facebook because they are making those decisions to get the best return on the same business model.
Google's social media presence is weak, their strength is in search. Facebook doesn't deal with search, they are all about social media. If Google had bought Facebook, I'd expect them to be as strong in social media as Facebook is now and that would have a different set of decisions than they make when it comes to search. You can only really determine what would happen for sure after it happens. This is not exclusive to Google either, if Microsoft or Apple had bought Facebook, I'd expect some of the same things but in those instances, they don't have the same motive as their primary revenue streams are from hardware/software. They could easily remove all 3rd party advertising from the social networks and simply advertise their own brand. Apple could actually turn iMessage into a social network (if they made it platform-independent).
Google's present and past use of the data doesn't particularly concern me but I think the real world parallel I posted earlier is a reason why people would feel uncomfortable with it. If Google did in real life what they do online, they would surely be labelled as stalkers. In the real world, Google and others would get a restraining order. When it comes to online activity, users are volunteering the information but partly because what goes on behind the scenes is unknown. In the real world, it's harder to do that invisible tracking. It's comforting to think that Google only uses our data vaguely for ads but are they obliged to stick to that and are they transparent about exactly the processes the data is going through?
Google's storage of data is concerning for the future if it ever did get hacked somehow. This has happened to huge companies. Imagine that every search term anyone ever typed into a search engine was leaked along with a vague profile that could be used to identify individuals. The people in Pakistan would absolutely feel right to be worried:
[VIDEO]
It's also what can be implied from the data. There was a case here where police used search engine queries to reach the wrong conclusion about a criminal case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283673/Did-acid-attack-girl-Police-probe-Victorias-Secret-worker-seize-laptop.html
They assumed that the girl had been searching for acid attack stories and poured acid on herself for attention when in fact she was attacked by someone she'd considered a close friend.
I think the app/IAP model has proven itself to be a viable alternative to advertising. AI has a subscription app:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/appleinsider/id578462575?mt=8
When I see a paywall on a website, I pretty much close it immediately but if I have to pay $0.99 for an app or buy an inexpensive IAP, it doesn't have the same effect. The problem taking that to the web is that people tend to jump between sites a lot so having each site contained in an app makes that harder. Advertising is an unavoidable business model when it comes to young people because they don't have money to spend online.
Advertising could do with being regulated the way that TV advertising is. These ads about getting ripped in 4 weeks or Google paying someone x amount per hour would never be allowed on TV. Online tracking should also be treated the same way offline tracking would be.
Hahahaha. Yessssss! It is you!
Well that made my day. Like I said I am not around a whole lot but I will try to make an effort to come around more often now.
Keep on keepin' on Relic!
1. Lol at that video. Funny song to boot.
I got the app. I paid for the subscription. The app only shows the first 10 comments. Comments are what I come for when visiting this site. And I do that
almostdaily. But I can't reply to the comments in the app, I can't even properly read them as there is no indented quoting, no font size adjustment, no hyperlinks, no option to quote, post, or whatever. Just to read the first 10 posts. The app is not for me.The app is done somewhat nicely but sorely lacks of making it usable. It does do what it's advertised to do: reading the site without seeing any ads.. Truth be told, I never see the ads, due to ad blocking and always going straight to the forum, not the homepage.
But I do get the point of advertising. Seen a lot over my lifetime, but never actually bought something because I remembered the ad while shopping. Do people actually remember ads to begin with? Or is it all marketing, all needed to get the name of the brand out?
Even if I see a 'Google page' and it has an ad of a product I might want to learn about I simply copy/paste the URL or type in the domain name myself, just so the advertiser doesn't have to pay for the ad. I'm pathetic, aren't I?