It's not my argument. It's Schmidt's. I'm just saying that's his angle.
Ok, see below:
"literally ALL" is the lie.
90% is not equal to "literally ALL" for all values of 90%.
'Literally' is one of the most misdefined and misused words. A lot of people say 'literally' when they mean 'figuratively'. Some people are more charitable and say that people are just being ironic. But really they're just being ignorant. Literally. And I don't say that in irony.
Isn't Google's mission statement something like "to organize all the world's information"? Now, how you do that without harvesting data is a mystery to me.
It's not my argument. It's Schmidt's. I'm just saying that's his angle.
Ok, see below:
"literally ALL" is the lie.
90% is not equal to "literally ALL" for all values of 90%.
'Literally' is one of the most misdefined and misused words. A lot of people say 'literally' when they mean 'figuratively'. Some people are more charitable and say that people are just being ironic. But really they're just being ignorant. Literally. And I don't say that in irony.
Yep.
Sometimes the level of literacy displayed on the internet is in the gutter, literally.
Wow the folks around here really hate google. Almost as much as they hate samsung. What about facebook. You guys should really really really hate facebook.
I wonder where appleinsider would be without google.
What I mean is, who pays the bills around here?
Looking at ghostery it sure seems like google pays the bills around here. Along with Adblade, Adknowledge, Almondnet, and god knows who else. Thanks ghostery!
If you aren't using ghostery and ad block plus you should be.
"I'm using ghostery, what aGodsend. I started using Bing, and the only google "service" I have left is GMAIL. I"m about to stop using that as well
"Between May 2007 and May 2010, as part of it's Street View project, Google Inc. (Google or Company) collected data from Wi-Fi networks throughout the United States and around the world. The purpose of Google's Wi-Fi data collection initiative was to capture information about Wi-Fi networks that the company could use to establish users' locations and provide location-based services. But Google also collected "payload" data - the content of internet communications - that was not needed for it's location database project. The payload data included e-mail and text messages, passwords, Internet usage history, and other highly sensitive personal information."
"When the European data protection authorities investigated Google's Wi-Fi data collection efforts in 2010, the Company initially the denied collecting payload data. On May 14, 2010, however, Google publicly acknowledged that it had been, "collecting samples of payload data from open (i.e., non-password-protected) WiFI networks" but stated that it likely collected only fragmented data. Google traced the collection of payload data to code that was "mistakenly" included in its Wi-Fi data collection software. On October 22, 2010 Google acknowledged for the first time that "in some instances entire e-mails and passwords were captured, as well as passwords." And finally, as described below, the Company provided evidence to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) showing that the data collection resulted from a deliberate software-design decision by one of the Google employees working on the Street View project."
Never forget.
It helps to actually remember "facts" but of course most people don't because the average attention span of humans is about 3 seconds. Anyone not securing their home wi-fi network deserves to be taken advantage of.
This is what I think too. I seriously doubt that Google sells anyone's personal data. No doubt they collect a boat load of it but, they don't sell it, they use it for their own business model. Advertisers probably don't even want to buy the data. It is cheaper for them to just pay Google for targeted advertising than to manage the data themselves. The data has a very short expiration date and only Google is able to keep it current enough for it to be useful. It would also be foolish for Google sell any data because that is what keeps them relevant to the advertisers. Why would they sell off their most important business asset?
If Google was actually selling your data, there would be some proof. There is no way to keep something like that a secret for nearly two decades, especially on the Internet. People point to some scenario like "I searched for information about a topic and then later I was shown an ad about that exact topic or product. Isn't that proof enough?" No, that is just Google at work, not Google selling your personal information to an advertiser.
it's not your data that is being sold it is figuratively you , Google sells the customer the ability to get targeted ads on the screen in front of you and it sends emails based on your profile. When you click on them google gets paid by the advertiser
it's not your data that is being sold it is figuratively you , Google sells the customer the ability to get targeted ads on the screen in front of you and it sends emails based on your profile. When you click on them google gets paid by the advertiser
Every email address is a possible receptacle for spam, that is if you using it on public sites. I have 2 Gmail addresses that have never had a single piece of span in them because I use them for aquatentences correspondence only, friends and family go through my private email server. The same thing with Hotmail and Yahoo. Google also doesn't sell you, literary or figuratively, they use the habits of an online profile, something that you can easily manipulate to hide your true identity. Don't want company's like Google knowing exactly what kind of person you are, stop sharing so much information about yourself online, FaceBook, Twitter, Google+, etc. It's easy to blame a company or even believe that a company has your best interests in mind by swearing that they don't share you private data but the sole responsibility of online security lies with the individual.
People talk of Web 2.0, etc. but as far as I'm concerned, we're still in Web Beta. Why is there no central repository for all retailers, like a High Street? The way in which, in order to browse online shops, you have to do a search or go to Amazon then look up an item, I find so clunky and unattractive.
Someone needs to design an online shopfront which acts as a gateway to retail. It doesn't exist. I know there are shopping apps which act as department stores, but there's still no cohesion. When Tim Cook talks about tv still being stuck in twenty years ago, I feel the same can be applied to internet shopping. Maybe it will never become attractive for as long as we want to go to physical shops.
And then the first company to build such a "fronted" could claim 30% and get you out if they acquire a competitor to your product or go in your business. Or if states build it, the country who owns the frontend has an advantage (the way the USA currently has an advantage by owning the Internic). or if it's international, the bigger fundraiser has an advantage like the USA has with the World Trade Organization and Europe has with the IMF.
Hard to make fair systems that also are easy to use, isn't it?
Comments
It's not my argument. It's Schmidt's. I'm just saying that's his angle.
Ok, see below:
"literally ALL" is the lie.
90% is not equal to "literally ALL" for all values of 90%.
'Literally' is one of the most misdefined and misused words. A lot of people say 'literally' when they mean 'figuratively'. Some people are more charitable and say that people are just being ironic. But really they're just being ignorant. Literally. And I don't say that in irony.
Isn't Google's mission statement something like "to organize all the world's information"? Now, how you do that without harvesting data is a mystery to me.
Yep.
Sometimes the level of literacy displayed on the internet is in the gutter, literally.
denies allegations of harvesting data
Good laugh
Of course he will not admit that Google and NSA have worked together. Who would!
I thought google is a division of the NSA?
shushhhh. . . Loose lips and all that. 8-)
Wow the folks around here really hate google. Almost as much as they hate samsung. What about facebook. You guys should really really really hate facebook.
I wonder where appleinsider would be without google.
What I mean is, who pays the bills around here?
Looking at ghostery it sure seems like google pays the bills around here. Along with Adblade, Adknowledge, Almondnet, and god knows who else. Thanks ghostery!
If you aren't using ghostery and ad block plus you should be.
"I'm using ghostery, what aGodsend. I started using Bing, and the only google "service" I have left is GMAIL. I"m about to stop using that as well
Yeah, Eric, because this apparently never happened. Oh wait... it did:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/91652398/FCC-Report-on-Google-Street-View-personal-data-mining
"Between May 2007 and May 2010, as part of it's Street View project, Google Inc. (Google or Company) collected data from Wi-Fi networks throughout the United States and around the world. The purpose of Google's Wi-Fi data collection initiative was to capture information about Wi-Fi networks that the company could use to establish users' locations and provide location-based services. But Google also collected "payload" data - the content of internet communications - that was not needed for it's location database project. The payload data included e-mail and text messages, passwords, Internet usage history, and other highly sensitive personal information."
"When the European data protection authorities investigated Google's Wi-Fi data collection efforts in 2010, the Company initially the denied collecting payload data. On May 14, 2010, however, Google publicly acknowledged that it had been, "collecting samples of payload data from open (i.e., non-password-protected) WiFI networks" but stated that it likely collected only fragmented data. Google traced the collection of payload data to code that was "mistakenly" included in its Wi-Fi data collection software. On October 22, 2010 Google acknowledged for the first time that "in some instances entire e-mails and passwords were captured, as well as passwords." And finally, as described below, the Company provided evidence to the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) showing that the data collection resulted from a deliberate software-design decision by one of the Google employees working on the Street View project."
Never forget.
It helps to actually remember "facts" but of course most people don't because the average attention span of humans is about 3 seconds. Anyone not securing their home wi-fi network deserves to be taken advantage of.
This is what I think too. I seriously doubt that Google sells anyone's personal data. No doubt they collect a boat load of it but, they don't sell it, they use it for their own business model. Advertisers probably don't even want to buy the data. It is cheaper for them to just pay Google for targeted advertising than to manage the data themselves. The data has a very short expiration date and only Google is able to keep it current enough for it to be useful. It would also be foolish for Google sell any data because that is what keeps them relevant to the advertisers. Why would they sell off their most important business asset?
If Google was actually selling your data, there would be some proof. There is no way to keep something like that a secret for nearly two decades, especially on the Internet. People point to some scenario like "I searched for information about a topic and then later I was shown an ad about that exact topic or product. Isn't that proof enough?" No, that is just Google at work, not Google selling your personal information to an advertiser.
it's not your data that is being sold it is figuratively you , Google sells the customer the ability to get targeted ads on the screen in front of you and it sends emails based on your profile. When you click on them google gets paid by the advertiser
The guy is Google's version of Steve Ballmer.
Every email address is a possible receptacle for spam, that is if you using it on public sites. I have 2 Gmail addresses that have never had a single piece of span in them because I use them for aquatentences correspondence only, friends and family go through my private email server. The same thing with Hotmail and Yahoo. Google also doesn't sell you, literary or figuratively, they use the habits of an online profile, something that you can easily manipulate to hide your true identity. Don't want company's like Google knowing exactly what kind of person you are, stop sharing so much information about yourself online, FaceBook, Twitter, Google+, etc. It's easy to blame a company or even believe that a company has your best interests in mind by swearing that they don't share you private data but the sole responsibility of online security lies with the individual.
That's called a sociopath. "Freedoms" aren't the problems; authority and power are.
Going off-topic, but related to advertisers:
The web is a mess.
People talk of Web 2.0, etc. but as far as I'm concerned, we're still in Web Beta. Why is there no central repository for all retailers, like a High Street? The way in which, in order to browse online shops, you have to do a search or go to Amazon then look up an item, I find so clunky and unattractive.
Someone needs to design an online shopfront which acts as a gateway to retail. It doesn't exist. I know there are shopping apps which act as department stores, but there's still no cohesion. When Tim Cook talks about tv still being stuck in twenty years ago, I feel the same can be applied to internet shopping. Maybe it will never become attractive for as long as we want to go to physical shops.
And then the first company to build such a "fronted" could claim 30% and get you out if they acquire a competitor to your product or go in your business. Or if states build it, the country who owns the frontend has an advantage (the way the USA currently has an advantage by owning the Internic). or if it's international, the bigger fundraiser has an advantage like the USA has with the World Trade Organization and Europe has with the IMF.
Hard to make fair systems that also are easy to use, isn't it?