Soli if it never leaves their custody and control how did Google and Apple sell it? No sir, both companies securely keep the data they have on you under lock and key for their own uses, no one else's.
You're now using the pirate downloader's argument that only getting a copy of the data isn't getting the original data so there is nothing taken? Come on! :no:
You're now using the pirate downloader's argument that only getting a copy of the data isn't getting the original data so there is nothing taken? Come on! :no:
Copy of the data?? You can't even buy that Soli, but point me to it if you think I'm wrong. Keyword results is hardly selling the data that made it possible. If you were even half right then Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and every other provider would just buy it all from Google instead of spending so much effort on collecting it themselves.
The reason Google ad services are as valuable as they are is because no one else has access to the data behind it.
Copy of the data?? You can't even buy that Soli, but point me to it if you think I'm wrong. Keyword results is hardly selling the data that made it possible. If you were even half right then Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and every other provider would just buy it all from Google instead of spending so much effort on collecting it themselves.
The reason Google ad services are as valuable as they are is because no one else has access to the data behind it.
OK, so Apple, MS, Amazon and pretty much everyone else sells data, except for Google. How reasonable and objective of you¡
I strong;y disagree -- I suspect that Edward Snowden was at some point convinced (maybe still is) that dumping all the intelligence data he had for the world (ALL) to see made the world a safer place. I just don't buy that something that is supposed to be so secure can be walked off with, in front of combined US military intelligence (oxymoron) and other so-called intelligence agencies with the US. It has been proven many times the all it takes is one weak link.
Wait: This is backwards.
Data security is, in part, also about services like the NSA NOT being able to access my information. It is none of their business.
We wouldn't even know about the extent of their illegal activity if it weren't for Snowden.
I strong;y disagree -- I suspect that Edward Snowden was at some point convinced (maybe still is) that dumping all the intelligence data he had for the world (ALL) to see made the world a safer place. I just don't buy that something that is supposed to be so secure can be walked off with, in front of combined US military intelligence (oxymoron) and other so-called intelligence agencies with the US. It has been proven many times the all it takes is one weak link.
Wait: This is backwards.
Data security is, in part, also about services like the NSA NOT being able to access my information. It is none of their business.
We wouldn't even know about the extent of their illegal activity if it weren't for Snowden.
I dare say it could have been demonstrated in a different way i.e., without giving out the massive amount of classified data he did. "We wouldn't even know about the extent of their illegal activity if it weren't for Snowden" [and all his illegal activity].
I dare say it could have been demonstrated in a different way i.e., without giving out the massive amount of classified data he did. "We wouldn't even know about the extent of their illegal activity if it weren't for Snowden" [and all his illegal activity].
Fixed it for you.
Anything else would have been deniable. This is just outrageous, and it has considerably (and justifiably) changed the United States' image in the world.
You're absolutely correct It was settled some time ago. Google does not sell data. I didn't expect you to have any backup for what I'll assume was an honest mistake on your part. It's not the first time your memory has played tricks on you.
Mine sometimes fails me too. That's why I take a few minutes to have a look around when in doubt.
BTW I don't own any tech stock at all other than just a few shares of Qualcomm you you can scratch that off your list too.
Maybe this is just semantics, but I've been poking around and I feel like GatorGuy has a point. Looking around Google's services for advertisers, they appear to sell ad placement -- i.e. they will deliver my ad to users who match certain characteristics (like searching for particular terms or having visited another website in the Google ad network) but I don't see anywhere where they will sell me information on the users directly. Further, they offer statistics on how many people my ad goes to, but they won't tell me who sees my ad (by name or even by IP). The sample data that I'm seeing does not appear to be fine-grained enough to identify individuals by other means.
In other words, what Google appears to be selling is not "Bob, Susan, and Jane searched for bananas" but "we've placed your ad for bananas on the screens of three people who had searched for bananas." Much less "Bob, Susan, and Jane searched for bananas, and Bob's also into porn." GatorGuy's argument that Google wouldn't even want to give away such cross-indexed information seems sensible.
To compare to another business, I know that Chase sells my information directly to other financial services companies, because Chase has for years had a typo in my name on my account that I can't seem to get them to fix, and I get postal messages from third parties addressed to that name quite frequently. So Chase will sell mailing lists, apparently even including some financial data, or at least filtering their customer base by certain financial characteristics.
If Google will sell individual-level information in the same way, I can't find it. Can anybody provide a link?
Maybe this is just semantics, but I've been poking around and I feel like GatorGuy has a point. Looking around Google's services for advertisers, they appear to sell ad placement -- i.e. they will deliver my ad to users who match certain characteristics (like searching for particular terms or having visited another website in the Google ad network) but I don't see anywhere where they will sell me information on the users directly.
That's exactly what it is, and he knows it. No one here is saying Google will copy your hard drive — which he's now oddly saying that copying data isn't taking it if the original is left intact, and therefore still in our hands even though out of our control — and then sells that information off. Having a buffer between their customers (the advertisers) and their product (us) is still Google selling data. I tried to show him how silly is semantics game is by going to the opposite extreme, but he feigned that he didn't know what I was talking about, which led to his current comments about custody.
That's exactly what it is, and he knows it. No one here is saying Google will copy your hard drive — which he's now oddly saying that copying data isn't taking it if the original is left intact, and therefore still in our hands even though out of our control — and then sells that information off. Having a buffer between their customers (the advertisers) and their product (us) is still Google selling data. I tried to show him how silly is semantics game is by going to the opposite extreme, but he feigned that he didn't know what I was talking about, which led to his current comments about custody.
Soli, it's not like you to put words in my mouth, especially patently untrue ones. It was you oddly equating pirated movies and Google data, not me. Worse, I don't even condone the theft of movies nor music in the first place, tho you seem to imply I've opined it's OK. You're talking about theft.
No sir, my posts from the start have said Google does ad placement rather than sale of data. You've now apparently agreed with that in your reply to the previous poster so why did you continue trying to make it into something else (pounding your head on the table??, inventing claims I never made?
Methinks you're struggling with a way to claim you were correct all along with your assertion that Google (and several others) sells data, wordplay being your current ploy. It flies in the face of truth tho, with a total lack of evidence that they, and according to you Apple as well, do so. Selling milk does not mean you're selling cows.
Perhaps it was simply a boring day and you were trying to shake things up with a contrived argument?
Soli, it's not like you to put words in my mouth, especially patently untrue ones. It was you oddly equating pirated movies and Google data, not me. Worse, I don't even condone the theft of movies nor music in the first place, tho you seem to imply I've opined it's OK. You're talking about theft.
Methinks you're struggling with a way to claim you were correct all along with your assertion that Google sells data, wordplay being your current effort. It flies in the face of evidence tho, with a total lack of evidence that they, and according to you Apple as well, do so. Selling milk does not mean you're selling cows.
Perhaps it was simply a boring day and you were trying to shake things up with a contrived argument?
Those were your words, "Soli if it never leaves their custody and control how did Google and Apple sell it?"
Easy question for you good sir. What claim did I make about Google and data that the previous poster who you state you agree with did not?
You said, flat out, that Google doesn't sell data. I pointed out, with examples of companies and various types of data they do indeed sell data. One of group of examples was Apple with their iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore, which you then countered with your question about it's really selling data if they retain custody and control over the original data.
You said, flat out, that Google doesn't sell data. I pointed out, with examples of companies and various types of data they do indeed sell data. One of group of examples was Apple with their iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore, which you then countered with your question about it's really selling data if they retain custody and control over the original data.
Oh geez.... What I said was you can't even buy a copy of what data Google has! Google sells no data whatsoever, not even copies of it. Nor does Apple AFAIK.. Please don't make claims up Soli and read what what actually written in context. I have much more respect for you than what's being presented at the moment.
You're now using the pirate downloader's argument that only getting a copy of the data isn't getting the original data so there is nothing taken? Come on! :no:
Copy of the data?? You can't even buy that Soli, but point me to it if you think I'm wrong. Keyword results is hardly selling the data that made it possible. If you were even half right then Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and every other provider would just buy it all from Google instead of spending so much effort on collecting it themselves.
The reason Google ad services are as valuable as they are is because no one else has access to the data behind it.
Oh geez.... What I said was you can't even buy a copy of what data Google has! Google sells no data whatsoever, not even copies of it. Nor does Apple AFAIK.. Please don't make claims up Soli. I have much more respect for you than that.
Then read the previous post again and follow the quotes. I'm beginning to wonder if this is the real Solipsism or instead another poser like we had a few weeks back. You're not making sense.
Oh, I followed it, hence my carefully worded comments in this conversation.
Then by "patently false" you could only have been referring to my respect for you since everything before that was demonstrably true and provable by simply reading what we each wrote.
Carry on then since respect can't be proven and just has to be accepted on faith.
Maybe this is just semantics, but I've been poking around and I feel like GatorGuy has a point. Looking around Google's services for advertisers, they appear to sell ad placement -- i.e. they will deliver my ad to users who match certain characteristics (like searching for particular terms or having visited another website in the Google ad network) but I don't see anywhere where they will sell me information on the users directly. Further, they offer statistics on how many people my ad goes to, but they won't tell me who sees my ad (by name or even by IP). The sample data that I'm seeing does not appear to be fine-grained enough to identify individuals by other means.
In other words, what Google appears to be selling is not "Bob, Susan, and Jane searched for bananas" but "we've placed your ad for bananas on the screens of three people who had searched for bananas." Much less "Bob, Susan, and Jane searched for bananas, and Bob's also into porn." GatorGuy's argument that Google wouldn't even want to give away such cross-indexed information seems sensible.
To compare to another business, I know that Chase sells my information directly to other financial services companies, because Chase has for years had a typo in my name on my account that I can't seem to get them to fix, and I get postal messages from third parties addressed to that name quite frequently. So Chase will sell mailing lists, apparently even including some financial data, or at least filtering their customer base by certain financial characteristics.
If Google will sell individual-level information in the same way, I can't find it. Can anybody provide a link?
Google does more than just respond to searches. They look at the sites you visit regardless of whether you searched to get there or typed the URL directly and from everything I can tell, they're looking at all your cookies. I don't even use Google search (I use Microsoft's search engine), but when I go to sites the Google ads still reflect (sometimes stupidly) sites I've been to.
For example, I went to a site to buy tickets to a show. On almost every site I go to, I now get an annoying ad trying to sell me tickets to that same show.
I won't pretend to know exactly what Google is doing (does anybody?), but I don't think they should be permitted to track the websites I go to directly and they should not be allowed to read any cookies but their own.
Comments
You're now using the pirate downloader's argument that only getting a copy of the data isn't getting the original data so there is nothing taken? Come on! :no:
The reason Google ad services are as valuable as they are is because no one else has access to the data behind it.
OK, so Apple, MS, Amazon and pretty much everyone else sells data, except for Google. How reasonable and objective of you¡
Other than Apple I don't know enough about the others. Maybe you're right about them. But. . . Apple sells data? . . . really? To whom?
I strong;y disagree -- I suspect that Edward Snowden was at some point convinced (maybe still is) that dumping all the intelligence data he had for the world (ALL) to see made the world a safer place. I just don't buy that something that is supposed to be so secure can be walked off with, in front of combined US military intelligence (oxymoron) and other so-called intelligence agencies with the US. It has been proven many times the all it takes is one weak link.
Wait: This is backwards.
Data security is, in part, also about services like the NSA NOT being able to access my information. It is none of their business.
We wouldn't even know about the extent of their illegal activity if it weren't for Snowden.
I strong;y disagree -- I suspect that Edward Snowden was at some point convinced (maybe still is) that dumping all the intelligence data he had for the world (ALL) to see made the world a safer place. I just don't buy that something that is supposed to be so secure can be walked off with, in front of combined US military intelligence (oxymoron) and other so-called intelligence agencies with the US. It has been proven many times the all it takes is one weak link.
Wait: This is backwards.
Data security is, in part, also about services like the NSA NOT being able to access my information. It is none of their business.
We wouldn't even know about the extent of their illegal activity if it weren't for Snowden.
I dare say it could have been demonstrated in a different way i.e., without giving out the massive amount of classified data he did. "We wouldn't even know about the extent of their illegal activity if it weren't for Snowden" [and all his illegal activity].
Fixed it for you.
I dare say it could have been demonstrated in a different way i.e., without giving out the massive amount of classified data he did. "We wouldn't even know about the extent of their illegal activity if it weren't for Snowden" [and all his illegal activity].
Fixed it for you.
Anything else would have been deniable. This is just outrageous, and it has considerably (and justifiably) changed the United States' image in the world.
Then you should be in doubt here too.
Then you should be in doubt here too.
Maybe this is just semantics, but I've been poking around and I feel like GatorGuy has a point. Looking around Google's services for advertisers, they appear to sell ad placement -- i.e. they will deliver my ad to users who match certain characteristics (like searching for particular terms or having visited another website in the Google ad network) but I don't see anywhere where they will sell me information on the users directly. Further, they offer statistics on how many people my ad goes to, but they won't tell me who sees my ad (by name or even by IP). The sample data that I'm seeing does not appear to be fine-grained enough to identify individuals by other means.
In other words, what Google appears to be selling is not "Bob, Susan, and Jane searched for bananas" but "we've placed your ad for bananas on the screens of three people who had searched for bananas." Much less "Bob, Susan, and Jane searched for bananas, and Bob's also into porn." GatorGuy's argument that Google wouldn't even want to give away such cross-indexed information seems sensible.
To compare to another business, I know that Chase sells my information directly to other financial services companies, because Chase has for years had a typo in my name on my account that I can't seem to get them to fix, and I get postal messages from third parties addressed to that name quite frequently. So Chase will sell mailing lists, apparently even including some financial data, or at least filtering their customer base by certain financial characteristics.
If Google will sell individual-level information in the same way, I can't find it. Can anybody provide a link?
That's exactly what it is, and he knows it. No one here is saying Google will copy your hard drive — which he's now oddly saying that copying data isn't taking it if the original is left intact, and therefore still in our hands even though out of our control — and then sells that information off. Having a buffer between their customers (the advertisers) and their product (us) is still Google selling data. I tried to show him how silly is semantics game is by going to the opposite extreme, but he feigned that he didn't know what I was talking about, which led to his current comments about custody.
No sir, my posts from the start have said Google does ad placement rather than sale of data. You've now apparently agreed with that in your reply to the previous poster so why did you continue trying to make it into something else (pounding your head on the table??, inventing claims I never made?
Methinks you're struggling with a way to claim you were correct all along with your assertion that Google (and several others) sells data, wordplay being your current ploy. It flies in the face of truth tho, with a total lack of evidence that they, and according to you Apple as well, do so. Selling milk does not mean you're selling cows.
Perhaps it was simply a boring day and you were trying to shake things up with a contrived argument?
Those were your words, "Soli if it never leaves their custody and control how did Google and Apple sell it?"
You said, flat out, that Google doesn't sell data. I pointed out, with examples of companies and various types of data they do indeed sell data. One of group of examples was Apple with their iTunes Store, App Store, and iBookstore, which you then countered with your question about it's really selling data if they retain custody and control over the original data.
That's patently false, and you know it.
Oh, I followed it, hence my carefully worded comments in this conversation.
Then by "patently false" you could only have been referring to my respect for you since everything before that was demonstrably true and provable by simply reading what we each wrote.
Carry on then since respect can't be proven and just has to be accepted on faith.
Google does more than just respond to searches. They look at the sites you visit regardless of whether you searched to get there or typed the URL directly and from everything I can tell, they're looking at all your cookies. I don't even use Google search (I use Microsoft's search engine), but when I go to sites the Google ads still reflect (sometimes stupidly) sites I've been to.
For example, I went to a site to buy tickets to a show. On almost every site I go to, I now get an annoying ad trying to sell me tickets to that same show.
I won't pretend to know exactly what Google is doing (does anybody?), but I don't think they should be permitted to track the websites I go to directly and they should not be allowed to read any cookies but their own.