So, and correct me if I'm wrong, but every email a Mac user sends using their Apple Mail to a Gmail account is surely also being scanned and used this way. If so, I'd like to see a class action law suit. Gmail users probably signed up for this invasion of privacy, Apple Mail users didn't.
BTW and relevant ... Little Snitch version 4 is out in beta now (10.12 and 10.13 compliant) and very impressive!
Lol, think that through....
Once you you send it & it gets dumped into the receiving party’s inbox, it is their property. They may show it to whomever they wish, correct? If you sent me an email & I showed it to my uncle; are you of the opinion that you’d have a basis to sue me?? Of course not! Similarly, when a gmail user accepted the EULA & terms of service they agreed to “show” the emails they receive to Google. They are NOT scanning anything that you have ownership of, using Apple mail... they only scan it once the receiver takes ownership of it (when it hits their inbox). Anyways.... I think in this instance... such a lawsuit would never even get off the ground. It is EXTREMELY clear cut.
If its like copyright it is in fact not the receiver's property.
So, you're telling me that I send my thesis to a Gmail account I have in fact relinquished all claims to this document... Really. Is that what it takes.
What about photographs, or document with Intellectual property in them, or propietary info in them, or business info in them.
Google can do whatever because you sent that doc to a Gmail account.... Well, I'd like those fuckers try to defend this in court if they even dare.
Saying to think of this trough is condescending when obviously you have not.
And no, it is not clear cut until it hits the courts.
"Yahoo’s going to keep scanning email, but it’s tweaking the timing so that it scans only after the email has reached a user’s inbox. Outgoing messages will also still continue to be scanned, but only after they show up in the sent folder.
Thursday’s settlement, first spotted by The Recorder, doesn’t include payouts to class members, given that the plaintiffs had earlier in the case dropped demands for statutory damages.
The plaintiffs do plan to seek a $5,000 service award for each of the four class representatives, according to The Recorder, and the lawyers plan to ask for up to $4 million in fees and costs.
The class action lawsuit, which tied together six lawsuits filed in 2013, was given the go-ahead by a US District judge in May 2015.
In the settlement (PDF), posted by Ars Technica, Yahoo agreed that e-mail content will be “only sent to servers for analysis for advertising purposes after a Yahoo Mail user can access the email in his or her inbox.”
You ignored various bits of "meat" and latched onto a couple things that you could attempt to refute. Good strategy, I guess, though I'd just like to mention that it didn't slide past me unnoticed. ;-)
I can absolutely positively guarantee that Acxiom or others like them know much more about you than what you are suggesting, If you've ever filled a prescription there's a data miner with that information for sale. Have any car or home insurance policies? A whole lotta personal information was needed for that, and it ends up in an industry database. Medical insurance? Life Insurance? The information you submitted to those companies almost certainly is available for purchase/sharing too, regardless of supposed privacy restrictions. Credit cards and banking need no explanation. So dispense with the apparently unknown "Google knows all". Unless they're buying the info your insurers, credit card and bank is selling (any evidence to that effect?) they would not have access to that kind of detail IMO. But Acxiom (I use them as an example and catch-all only because they are the biggest buyer and seller of personal data in the world according to news articles) and many others like them do whether you play on the internet or not.
I did see that I left out the Insurance industry after I'd clicked Post, but my browser no longer shows an Edit button. If more people knew about the sharing that insurance companies do behind the scenes there would probably be a rebellion, but alas, they've done a great job at keeping this stuff hidden from the average person.
Other than that, most of what you stated above as absolute fact is not fact, but your own presumption. I keep my offline presence as private as possible also, precisely because so much gets sold and aggregated by companies like acxiom, facebook and google. I dirty my data a LOT (and as much as possible in ways that actually work, since de-identification is an entire industry as well), I don't use tracking cards ("loyalty cards"), I don't use credit or debit cards, and I use various other methods that I won't discuss here. It's not 100% perfect, because of insurance requirements, but even there I am stingier with data than most people would think is possible. It takes some effort, and is occasionally a nuisance, but it feels clean. I don't live in a cave, and I enjoy life probably more than most people on a day-to-day basis, though explaining this would divulge more than I'm willing to do here. In any case, I thought you'd know me better than this by now.
But at least I now understand your comments were not based on fact but presumption. And to be honest I would share some of your same presumptions but unlike you not try to present them as fact. Oh and BTW I've not ever talked to anyone connected with Google in any way other than when they tried to sell my on Adwords. That's it. Otherwise I have no inside knowledge not available to anyone else.
Ah, but you do, when it fits your narrative. Here's another example right on this very thread:
"To be clear neither the plaintiffs, nor their attorneys, nor the judge is claiming Google uses emails from outside mail service providers like Apple mail for anything other than determining ads (using keyword machine scanning) to be shown to the Gmail recipient. They aren't building ad profiles on you the Apple Mail, or Yahoo, or Earthlink, or Outlook customer. "
Your conclusion has not been proven any more than the previous/opposite suggestion has been publicly proven.
And as you suggest with your "would share some of your same presumptions", even without insider information, the logical conclusion is that google is no different than other companies (like facebook) which clearly do build shadow profiles. google has shown themselves via various lawsuits around the world to not be a "nice guy". There is no reason to presume any intent on their part toward anything but maximizing profit. And yes, at times that means doing things to keep the user base placated to the minimum degree possible to continue maximizing profits.
If you think that google doesn't have individual behavioral profiles of their users (previous comment), then I'm not sure we have anything else to discuss on that front. If you think they are sitting by idly, not creating profiles of non-users based on incoming emails, then I will just say you are either naive or being disingenuous. "Proof" does not exist outside the company afaik, but do you seriously think google would let facebook one-up them in data gathering?
Just don't use Gmail...problem solved! Why anyone would use any Google service is beyond me...
It’s my employers Mail provider of choice.
They have also disabled access via anything but web interface inc no Outlook. I reckon I’ve taken a 15%-20% productivity hit.
Yes. If your employer uses a managed domain, you have no choice. Almost all state controlled education services where I live use 'Gmail' although the domain isn't Gmail. I suppose that the people who contract the services can negotiate privacy terms but I've never been involved in that aspect though.
You ignored various bits of "meat" and latched onto a couple things that you could attempt to refute. Good strategy, I guess, though I'd just like to mention that it didn't slide past me unnoticed. ;-)
I can absolutely positively guarantee that Acxiom or others like them know much more about you than what you are suggesting, If you've ever filled a prescription there's a data miner with that information for sale. Have any car or home insurance policies? A whole lotta personal information was needed for that, and it ends up in an industry database. Medical insurance? Life Insurance? The information you submitted to those companies almost certainly is available for purchase/sharing too, regardless of supposed privacy restrictions. Credit cards and banking need no explanation. So dispense with the apparently unknown "Google knows all". Unless they're buying the info your insurers, credit card and bank is selling (any evidence to that effect?) they would not have access to that kind of detail IMO. But Acxiom (I use them as an example and catch-all only because they are the biggest buyer and seller of personal data in the world according to news articles) and many others like them do whether you play on the internet or not.
I did see that I left out the Insurance industry after I'd clicked Post, but my browser no longer shows an Edit button. If more people knew about the sharing that insurance companies do behind the scenes there would probably be a rebellion, but alas, they've done a great job at keeping this stuff hidden from the average person.
If you think that google doesn't have individual behavioral profiles of their users (previous comment), then I'm not sure we have anything else to discuss on that front. If you think they are sitting by idly, not creating profiles of non-users based on incoming emails, then I will just say you are either naive or being disingenuous. "Proof" does not exist outside the company afaik, but do you seriously think google would let facebook one-up them in data gathering?
@blah64 ; No, I don't personally believe Google is creating personal profiles of web visitors who do not have a Google account. Facebook may well do so as they have details of people's lives, In context and with verified identified photos, friends, family etc. IF Google has anything at all along those lines, and some parts they may (tho no one, even former employees, has ever pointed to it being done) it could not possibly be as reliable and extensive and verifiable as what Facebook could put together IMHO. You don't seem all that worried about them comparatively, even tho friends or family might even have ID'd you in a Facebook posting, no Facebook account of your own necessary. https://spideroak.com/articles/facebook-shadow-profiles-a-profile-of-you-that-you-never-created http://www.zdnet.com/article/firm-facebooks-shadow-profiles-are-frightening-dossiers-on-everyone/
...and that ignores the admitted behavior modification experiments Facebook has performed on hundreds of thousands of its users but which you've instead attempted to lay on Google's shoulders with claims of scary-sounding "behavioral profiling" going on? http://www.salon.com/2014/06/29/facebook_admits_it_manipulated_689003_users_emotions_in_psychology_experiment/ That's but one of at least 10 psychological test programs Facebook begrudgingly admits to running on their users over the past 5 years. If you have the interest in staying abreast of privacy matters and/or the artificial manipulation of web visitors and their responses that you purport to have you'll do a bit of investigation on your own just as I've attempted.
So yes I fully believe Facebook one-ups Google when it comes to collecting details of our personal lives. Easily so. Google could only wish to have the depth and scope of billions of folks personal lives away from a computer where Google doesn't see them but Facebook does. Further every effort to be a little more like Facebook has failed. They're just not good at that.
Hundreds of millions of Facebook members discuss their parent's dementia, their sister's new baby boy named Shawn born Wednesday, the next-door neighbor Ted and Beth who brought over a housewarming gift from Walmart. They comment on the pic of Uncle Ted in the pool with Cousin Sarah, happily ID'ing their faces for others so you know who they are if you ever see them. They write up detailed posts on their latest ailment, the new car, the fight they are having with Billy at the water department, the ex-husband Jimmy who isn't paying enough child support and got arrested, and their dying friend Sally suffering at Moffitt. All without getting the permission of the parents, sister, next-door neighbors, Uncle Ted, Cousin Sarah or Sally, Jimmy the ex or Billy at the water department to post their details out in the open for even me or you to look over, living on in perpetuity on Facebook whether they have a Facebook account or not. Unless you don't have a social life at all don't assume you're not ID'd in there somewhere despite your personal efforts to avoid discovery.
But Google is apparently your biggest fear if you're trying to remain private? I think you've confused "Shadow Profiling" news reports with the wrong company. Do your own searches for "Google creates shadow profiles" and then another for "Facebook creates shadow profiles" and then come back with the same claim that Google is no different than Facebook while explaining to us what you base that on.
Google ain't perfect, no doubt about it. They sell ad space, and knowing where you are and what you've shown an interest in makes their service valuable. But from a privacy standpoint they are far, FAR from the scariest guys out there IMO. So many other companies can be proven to know so much intimate detail about your daily life and the ones around you. PROVEN. Not guessed at.
Yes we all need to stay vigilant with the companies like Google, and Microsoft, and Twitter and millions of other companies (even Apple) in addition to Government agencies because even if what some of them they do now may not be of any great danger to the current state of our "privacy" things can change. Admittedly some of them already do scary things IMO, too late to close the barn doors. But we all need to careful not to create imaginary "OMG can you believe it" (not-a) facts and claims since it can lead to a Chicken-Little situation where eventually far too many people ignore it (maybe they already do) as just another case of internet FUD and fake news.
So @blah64, I would not mind at all having an honest discussion about the dangers to our privacy that we may not recognize, but your seemingly knife-edge focus on Google as the Devil incarnate regarding privacy and personal data-mining makes it near impossible. You give very short shrift to companies that can be PROVEN to buy and sell our personal data, generally ignore what they have been PROVEN to know about each of us as individuals, only grudgingly acknowledge that entire industries are PROVEN in cahoots to share what they know about us among themselves (and choosing not to discuss it further?), but then consistently imply, or worse claim, with little to no supporting documentation you could muster that Google is doing all these horrible things, using scary words and phrases to describe it. You're allowing rumor and supposition to trump actual fact, and in fact encouraging it.
So I'll happily have an expansive conversation with you on the topic of privacy, but if you insist on a single-company focus as the mother of all evil but without much evidence for it there just can't be an honest one. I've laid out actual facts, and pointed you to resources for your own reading in both this and other very recent threads. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/2969957/#Comment_2969957 I've made a IMO very logical and supported argument that in my opinion Google does not factually know and/or do all the things you hang around their neck, and that there are companies out there that actually DO know and/or do most all the things you accuse Google of. Ball's in your court sir.
Comments
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/01/14/yahoo-settles-class-action-suit-over-scanning-email-for-ad-targeting/
"Yahoo’s going to keep scanning email, but it’s tweaking the timing so that it scans only after the email has reached a user’s inbox. Outgoing messages will also still continue to be scanned, but only after they show up in the sent folder.
Thursday’s settlement, first spotted by The Recorder, doesn’t include payouts to class members, given that the plaintiffs had earlier in the case dropped demands for statutory damages.
The plaintiffs do plan to seek a $5,000 service award for each of the four class representatives, according to The Recorder, and the lawyers plan to ask for up to $4 million in fees and costs.
The class action lawsuit, which tied together six lawsuits filed in 2013, was given the go-ahead by a US District judge in May 2015.
In the settlement (PDF), posted by Ars Technica, Yahoo agreed that e-mail content will be “only sent to servers for analysis for advertising purposes after a Yahoo Mail user can access the email in his or her inbox.”
As far as the plaintiffs are concerned, this will bring Yahoo in line with the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
That law was enacted to prohibit wiretapping of any conversation if there’s a reasonable expectation that it’s not being overheard or recorded."
There are subtle differences in the two cases which IMHO is why Google is choosing to stop the practice altogether, a wise move.
Other than that, most of what you stated above as absolute fact is not fact, but your own presumption. I keep my offline presence as private as possible also, precisely because so much gets sold and aggregated by companies like acxiom, facebook and google. I dirty my data a LOT (and as much as possible in ways that actually work, since de-identification is an entire industry as well), I don't use tracking cards ("loyalty cards"), I don't use credit or debit cards, and I use various other methods that I won't discuss here. It's not 100% perfect, because of insurance requirements, but even there I am stingier with data than most people would think is possible. It takes some effort, and is occasionally a nuisance, but it feels clean. I don't live in a cave, and I enjoy life probably more than most people on a day-to-day basis, though explaining this would divulge more than I'm willing to do here. In any case, I thought you'd know me better than this by now.
Ah, but you do, when it fits your narrative. Here's another example right on this very thread:
"To be clear neither the plaintiffs, nor their attorneys, nor the judge is claiming Google uses emails from outside mail service providers like Apple mail for anything other than determining ads (using keyword machine scanning) to be shown to the Gmail recipient. They aren't building ad profiles on you the Apple Mail, or Yahoo, or Earthlink, or Outlook customer. "
Your conclusion has not been proven any more than the previous/opposite suggestion has been publicly proven.
And as you suggest with your "would share some of your same presumptions", even without insider information, the logical conclusion is that google is no different than other companies (like facebook) which clearly do build shadow profiles. google has shown themselves via various lawsuits around the world to not be a "nice guy". There is no reason to presume any intent on their part toward anything but maximizing profit. And yes, at times that means doing things to keep the user base placated to the minimum degree possible to continue maximizing profits.
If you think that google doesn't have individual behavioral profiles of their users (previous comment), then I'm not sure we have anything else to discuss on that front. If you think they are sitting by idly, not creating profiles of non-users based on incoming emails, then I will just say you are either naive or being disingenuous. "Proof" does not exist outside the company afaik, but do you seriously think google would let facebook one-up them in data gathering?
They have also disabled access via anything but web interface inc no Outlook. I reckon I’ve taken a 15%-20% productivity hit.
No, I don't personally believe Google is creating personal profiles of web visitors who do not have a Google account. Facebook may well do so as they have details of people's lives, In context and with verified identified photos, friends, family etc. IF Google has anything at all along those lines, and some parts they may (tho no one, even former employees, has ever pointed to it being done) it could not possibly be as reliable and extensive and verifiable as what Facebook could put together IMHO. You don't seem all that worried about them comparatively, even tho friends or family might even have ID'd you in a Facebook posting, no Facebook account of your own necessary.
https://spideroak.com/articles/facebook-shadow-profiles-a-profile-of-you-that-you-never-created
http://www.zdnet.com/article/firm-facebooks-shadow-profiles-are-frightening-dossiers-on-everyone/
...and that ignores the admitted behavior modification experiments Facebook has performed on hundreds of thousands of its users but which you've instead attempted to lay on Google's shoulders with claims of scary-sounding "behavioral profiling" going on?
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/29/facebook_admits_it_manipulated_689003_users_emotions_in_psychology_experiment/
That's but one of at least 10 psychological test programs Facebook begrudgingly admits to running on their users over the past 5 years. If you have the interest in staying abreast of privacy matters and/or the artificial manipulation of web visitors and their responses that you purport to have you'll do a bit of investigation on your own just as I've attempted.
So yes I fully believe Facebook one-ups Google when it comes to collecting details of our personal lives. Easily so. Google could only wish to have the depth and scope of billions of folks personal lives away from a computer where Google doesn't see them but Facebook does. Further every effort to be a little more like Facebook has failed. They're just not good at that.
Hundreds of millions of Facebook members discuss their parent's dementia, their sister's new baby boy named Shawn born Wednesday, the next-door neighbor Ted and Beth who brought over a housewarming gift from Walmart. They comment on the pic of Uncle Ted in the pool with Cousin Sarah, happily ID'ing their faces for others so you know who they are if you ever see them. They write up detailed posts on their latest ailment, the new car, the fight they are having with Billy at the water department, the ex-husband Jimmy who isn't paying enough child support and got arrested, and their dying friend Sally suffering at Moffitt. All without getting the permission of the parents, sister, next-door neighbors, Uncle Ted, Cousin Sarah or Sally, Jimmy the ex or Billy at the water department to post their details out in the open for even me or you to look over, living on in perpetuity on Facebook whether they have a Facebook account or not. Unless you don't have a social life at all don't assume you're not ID'd in there somewhere despite your personal efforts to avoid discovery.
But Google is apparently your biggest fear if you're trying to remain private? I think you've confused "Shadow Profiling" news reports with the wrong company. Do your own searches for "Google creates shadow profiles" and then another for "Facebook creates shadow profiles" and then come back with the same claim that Google is no different than Facebook while explaining to us what you base that on.
Google ain't perfect, no doubt about it. They sell ad space, and knowing where you are and what you've shown an interest in makes their service valuable. But from a privacy standpoint they are far, FAR from the scariest guys out there IMO. So many other companies can be proven to know so much intimate detail about your daily life and the ones around you. PROVEN. Not guessed at.
Yes we all need to stay vigilant with the companies like Google, and Microsoft, and Twitter and millions of other companies (even Apple) in addition to Government agencies because even if what some of them they do now may not be of any great danger to the current state of our "privacy" things can change. Admittedly some of them already do scary things IMO, too late to close the barn doors. But we all need to careful not to create imaginary "OMG can you believe it" (not-a) facts and claims since it can lead to a Chicken-Little situation where eventually far too many people ignore it (maybe they already do) as just another case of internet FUD and fake news.
So @blah64, I would not mind at all having an honest discussion about the dangers to our privacy that we may not recognize, but your seemingly knife-edge focus on Google as the Devil incarnate regarding privacy and personal data-mining makes it near impossible. You give very short shrift to companies that can be PROVEN to buy and sell our personal data, generally ignore what they have been PROVEN to know about each of us as individuals, only grudgingly acknowledge that entire industries are PROVEN in cahoots to share what they know about us among themselves (and choosing not to discuss it further?), but then consistently imply, or worse claim, with little to no supporting documentation you could muster that Google is doing all these horrible things, using scary words and phrases to describe it. You're allowing rumor and supposition to trump actual fact, and in fact encouraging it.
So I'll happily have an expansive conversation with you on the topic of privacy, but if you insist on a single-company focus as the mother of all evil but without much evidence for it there just can't be an honest one. I've laid out actual facts, and pointed you to resources for your own reading in both this and other very recent threads.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/2969957/#Comment_2969957
I've made a IMO very logical and supported argument that in my opinion Google does not factually know and/or do all the things you hang around their neck, and that there are companies out there that actually DO know and/or do most all the things you accuse Google of. Ball's in your court sir.