Boy the ole fandroids are out by the masses trying like hell to cover Google's ass now! Here's so koolaid if you get thirsty along the way.
If you mean by “koolaid”, people pointing out the fact that users willingly grant access to third party developers to scan the emails in their gmail account then yes. Unlike some hysterical apologists for Apple who are eager to jump all over a largely non-story. As someone pointed out, everyone knows (or should know) that if you get something for free, you are most likely the product. Not like Google hides this fact and it has just suddenly been discovered.
FWIW I didn't give Apple permission to read my emails if they do, nor did I give permission to any 3rd party apps you or others might have installed either if those developers are.
My concern lies in not really being sure WHAT I've agreed to. Every time I try to read an EULA, one of three things happens:
1. The text is so long and opaque that my eyes glaze over and I come away with no more understanding than before i started reading. 2. I see some line that could be interpreted to mean "we can do whatever we want" so it's hard to know what I'm actually accepting. 3. The pertinent bits are buried in a mountain of minutia, again making it difficult for me to even FIND any sensitive clauses.
I don't accept that unexpected actions are okay as long as they're mention in the EULA, because those agreements are written by lawyers and the average consumer is unqualified to evaluate them. *IF* we accept the status quo, we are tacitly accepting the premise that users have a duty of due diligence, including seeking legal council, before using software. That seems, to me, an onerous burden given the commonplace nature of the activity. I don't think it's unreasonable to put the onus on the developer to clearly spell out, in plain language, exactly how the software may impact privacy. I may still choose to use it, if the benefits outweigh the risks/trade-offs (I still use Google search exactly BECAUSE Google does such a good job of tracking how I use it), so it seems like the only developers that would suffer would be those who actually have something to hide.
Have any of you actually read (and understood) the source report? Because AI apparently didn't.
I found AI's article confusing which led to a lot of questions, and when I tried to read the source they linked to there was a paywall that only let me see the first few sentences. It seems overblown. I don't recall AI commenters getting this worked up when 3rd-party apps were getting access to personal data on Apple's OSes and I certainly don't recall them getting their torches and pitchforks out against Apple for it.
I cannot access the WSJ article due to the paywall but I assume the gist of the story has to do with third party apps being granted access to your Gmail inbox, not the (lack of?) privacy of Gmail itself. I've been using an app call TripIt that constantly asks me whether I want to allow it to scan my Gmail inbox. I always answer NO. I do forward travel related confirmation emails to TripIt so it can produce a convenient timeline with reservation confirmation numbers, links to relevant map information, reminders, etc.
It's very obvious to me what the ramifications would be of granting anyone or anything access to my Gmail inbox. While I don't knowingly allow access to my Gmail account, if I did I would have to treat the particular email account as essentially semi-public/unprotected and make sure I don't have anything in my inbox that I do not wish to share. Additionally, I would be ethically and morally compelled to let everyone I share the Gmail address with know that responding to me via that address places the contents of their email in the same unprotected category.
At some point, like several years ago, we were all aware that the privacy of many services was sketchy at best. We all knew, or should have known if we actually read EULAs and privacy statements, that there was little to no expectation of privacy with some apps, especially the freebies. We still engaged in unprotected communication and poor cyberhygiene nevertheless. I'm as guilty as anyone and have tried to regain control of the situation. However, there's no way to recall all of the horses that have already left the barn and if nasty warts, uncontrolled drips, or itchy rashes start showing up on one of my "unprotected" email accounts it will not be a huge surprise, especially where Google is involved.
If you catch something from Google, please don't feign surprise. You knew it, it smelled bad, and you did it anyway.
As long as you realize it's not specific to Google and GMail. Yahoo, Microsoft, "most major email providers" as well IIRC according to the source, and as far as I can tell including Apple? Everyone suddenly went silent when I asked for confirmation. Do you perhaps know? If you install Spark or Airmail on your Mac or iPhone can it access, aka "Read", an email I send you?
No, Apple employees nor its partners can personally read your emails, as in by a human, in order to sell you stuff. Happy to believe this whataboutism if you have links to indicate it’s the case.
That's not at all what I asked. I guess a red herring that points to a false conclusion is at least something . Everyone else would seem to prefer not answering at all (inconvenient truth? Not sure), so kudos for that.
Anyway can Apple read your emails by machine scanning? Can Apple use a real human to do so if the situation were to require it? I don't see a single thing in Apple's EULA that would indicate they can't whether for legal or business reasons. Did you see something I didn't that says otherwise? You seem very sure they cannot and never will. But this story is more about granting 3rd party access to your email (and by extension mine too)
I want to be certain I understand you since you seem to be commenting on a very specific aspect only, human reading for marketing, which is not what the question was: If you're using Edison or Airmail or Spark on your Apple device can those developers/apps "read" an email sent from me to your Apple email account, whether done by machine or human and whether strictly for marketing or not? According to the source article Edison actually used some human scanning and Edison is an iOS app too.
Move them goalposts! Over here, no over there! Yeah no. The controversy here is that Google's partners can scan and personally read your emails in order to craft marketing for you. That's the controversy, because that's what they did. Read it here or on MR. As usual, you're trying to employ whataboutism to suggest 'But Apple does the same thing!' without providing any actual proof.
I don't have to disprove it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which you're doing even if you won't come out and say you are ('Just askin'!' etc...typical FUD tactics)
So, unless you can prove Apple does it too, then you're just full of shit, again.
Ahhh well I don't expect many to extrapolate to potential design scenarios... It's not about us finding out about us, backasswards or otherwise... Flip the switch and what happens next ? Can what we know today as 'civil society' change rapidly...? The Kremlin apparently switched to typewriters...
The slippery slope fallacy. You’re on a roll.
Slippery slope isn’t a fallacy. I’m not sure what his post was supposed to imply, though.
Yeah, it is. It's when the arguer goes "They do thing X, so therefore they will do thing Y! Oh nos!" It's fallacious.
So, unless you can prove Apple does it too, then you're just full of shit again.
Did he not prove it? I thought he mentioned that Apple needs to scan mail for spam. Hasn't Apple's spam filters been great since around the time they moved to iCloud? How is that process achieved without analyzing mail? I, for one, am glad that Apple finally figured out how to properly scan and remove spam from my email. Those MobileMe and .Mac days were rough for my email accounts.
If Apple want to protect customers privacy, as they say, they
should have choose another search engine, and even consider remove Google apps
from the App Store, don't you think?
I cannot access the WSJ article due to the paywall but I assume the gist of the story has to do with third party apps being granted access to your Gmail inbox, not the (lack of?) privacy of Gmail itself. I've been using an app call TripIt that constantly asks me whether I want to allow it to scan my Gmail inbox. I always answer NO. I do forward travel related confirmation emails to TripIt so it can produce a convenient timeline with reservation confirmation numbers, links to relevant map information, reminders, etc.
It's very obvious to me what the ramifications would be of granting anyone or anything access to my Gmail inbox. While I don't knowingly allow access to my Gmail account, if I did I would have to treat the particular email account as essentially semi-public/unprotected and make sure I don't have anything in my inbox that I do not wish to share. Additionally, I would be ethically and morally compelled to let everyone I share the Gmail address with know that responding to me via that address places the contents of their email in the same unprotected category.
At some point, like several years ago, we were all aware that the privacy of many services was sketchy at best. We all knew, or should have known if we actually read EULAs and privacy statements, that there was little to no expectation of privacy with some apps, especially the freebies. We still engaged in unprotected communication and poor cyberhygiene nevertheless. I'm as guilty as anyone and have tried to regain control of the situation. However, there's no way to recall all of the horses that have already left the barn and if nasty warts, uncontrolled drips, or itchy rashes start showing up on one of my "unprotected" email accounts it will not be a huge surprise, especially where Google is involved.
If you catch something from Google, please don't feign surprise. You knew it, it smelled bad, and you did it anyway.
As long as you realize it's not specific to Google and GMail. Yahoo, Microsoft, "most major email providers" as well IIRC according to the source, and as far as I can tell including Apple? Everyone suddenly went silent when I asked for confirmation. Do you perhaps know? If you install Spark or Airmail on your Mac or iPhone can it access, aka "Read", an email I send you?
No, Apple employees nor its partners can personally read your emails, as in by a human, in order to sell you stuff. Happy to believe this whataboutism if you have links to indicate it’s the case.
That's not at all what I asked. I guess a red herring that points to a false conclusion is at least something . Everyone else would seem to prefer not answering at all (inconvenient truth? Not sure), so kudos for that.
Anyway can Apple read your emails by machine scanning? Can Apple use a real human to do so if the situation were to require it? I don't see a single thing in Apple's EULA that would indicate they can't whether for legal or business reasons. Did you see something I didn't that says otherwise? You seem very sure they cannot and never will. But this story is more about granting 3rd party access to your email (and by extension mine too)
I want to be certain I understand you since you seem to be commenting on a very specific aspect only, human reading for marketing, which is not what the question was: If you're using Edison or Airmail or Spark on your Apple device can those developers/apps "read" an email sent from me to your Apple email account, whether done by machine or human and whether strictly for marketing or not? According to the source article Edison actually used some human scanning and Edison is an iOS app too.
Move them goalposts! Over here, no over there! Yeah no.
I don't have to disprove it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim...
So, unless you can prove Apple does it too, then you're just full of shit, again.
Disprove what? I'm not the one in this thread accusing any company of evil wrongdoing, needing to be hauled before Congress and investigated.
I've been asking the same question from the get-go. No goal post moved. You making believe the article is only about the little thing that you want to be about doesn't make it so. Several posters in this thread stated their concern that Google would allow a third party to access their email for any reason.. They didn't worry about whether it was for marketing or anything else, it was the fact they did it. Just look at Rayz2016 post. He was concerned because he didn't give any third parties permission to see his emails yet according to the story there were some that could. It's only odd if the focus is only on Google but it's something that all major email providers are doing, Apple included. That's why I asked. If you don't know fine. If you do know but don't want to say maybe that's not so fine. You're not doing those concerned forum members any favors if you know something that they should also know. You don't usually hold back. Don't start now.
How often have you effectively said you're smarter than I am. Smarter than most folks here, right? So I ask you a question as an iPhone owner who knows much more about it than I do and you do everything but answer it. Dodge and weave, toss in an insult or two (by the way are you really this rude in real life?), do what you can to change the discussion into something you'd rather discuss instead of what was asked...Why the reluctance? Is your unwillingness to answer providing the answer?
gmgravytrain said: Facebook will be quickly going to $250 a share while Apple struggles to break $190.
What do individual share prices have anything to do with anything when comparing companies? Had Apple not split 7 ways a few years ago, the price would be ~$1280.
I ask this every time I see something like this mentioned as if it were meaningful in some way, but never get an answer.
Ahhh well I don't expect many to extrapolate to potential design scenarios... It's not about us finding out about us, backasswards or otherwise... Flip the switch and what happens next ? Can what we know today as 'civil society' change rapidly...? The Kremlin apparently switched to typewriters...
The slippery slope fallacy. You’re on a roll.
Slippery slope isn’t a fallacy. I’m not sure what his post was supposed to imply, though.
Yeah, it is. It's when the arguer goes "They do thing X, so therefore they will do thing Y! Oh nos!" It's fallacious.
This item was discussed early in my logic courses at university.
I think this is more of a mashup of some kind of inverse personal incredulity fallacy ("i don't expect many to extrapolate..."), black-or-white fallacy ("flip the switch"), counterfactual fallacy ("what happens next?/can we know...?"), and maybe false equivalence ("The Kremlin...") given that I thought we were talking about users protecting their data from state sponsored actors and not state sponsored actors protecting themselves from others, but my mind started trailing off at that point.
...and so 'we' agree to our favourite fruit company XX.X release EULA, in context of the represented current business model and in light of the Patriot Act...? I'll ask again where is the off switch for Photos image tagging ?
I suspect Orwell would be impressed at how this has been marketed and acquiesced...
Yet it is 'fun'... (of course!)
And all the contacts that others we may barely know have added our personal facial photo in to the Contacts database and then synced with iCloud - can that ever be even known or redacted? Apple to me is the ultimate Trojan Horse company, and if they ever flip the switch, well I guess that bridge will need crossing when the time comes...
Where does subterfuge lie in the gamut of 'evil'...?
On-device machine learning is what finds objects and things in your photos, and all of that data is shared among your devices if you have iCloud Photo Library turned on. If you are using that, then not sure why you'd be concerned that there's data saying there's a mountain or a cat in your photo when you're storing the actual photo in iCloud. If you're not doing that, then it doesn't matter as it's stored encrypted on your device.
Your second example is baffling. What if some other user attaches a photo of you to their contacts entry for you? How does that have anything to do with Apple, other than they store Contacts fully encrypted in iCloud? You really expect them enable you to find out about something in someone else's data and edit it? For fuck's sake, that's some backasswards logic right there.
Ahhh well I don't expect many to extrapolate to potential design scenarios... It's not about us finding out about us, backasswards or otherwise... Flip the switch and what happens next ? Can what we know today as 'civil society' change rapidly...? The Kremlin apparently switched to typewriters...
If you think any state-sponsored actor is going to have trouble putting a face to your name and contact info, you're delusional.
I would actually agree with that, thanks to so many out there who don't think of potential uploading images of others without knowledge or permission (Photos tagging no off switch - actually the simplest of requests and questions? why not?) vs what is being done (gmail scanning) at the moment... Does 'trust' define 'Trojan Horse'? Would Apple's 'data' be deemed most reliable if (when) the kaka hits the fan? Is private assembly still a right under the constitution? Perhaps a reality check for the future: https://fakeapp.soft32.com Keep on truckin' as it has been said - the developer gravy train zeitgeist...? www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac
...and so 'we' agree to our favourite fruit company XX.X release EULA, in context of the represented current business model and in light of the Patriot Act...? I'll ask again where is the off switch for Photos image tagging ?
I suspect Orwell would be impressed at how this has been marketed and acquiesced...
Yet it is 'fun'... (of course!)
And all the contacts that others we may barely know have added our personal facial photo in to the Contacts database and then synced with iCloud - can that ever be even known or redacted? Apple to me is the ultimate Trojan Horse company, and if they ever flip the switch, well I guess that bridge will need crossing when the time comes...
Where does subterfuge lie in the gamut of 'evil'...?
On-device machine learning is what finds objects and things in your photos, and all of that data is shared among your devices if you have iCloud Photo Library turned on. If you are using that, then not sure why you'd be concerned that there's data saying there's a mountain or a cat in your photo when you're storing the actual photo in iCloud. If you're not doing that, then it doesn't matter as it's stored encrypted on your device.
Your second example is baffling. What if some other user attaches a photo of you to their contacts entry for you? How does that have anything to do with Apple, other than they store Contacts fully encrypted in iCloud? You really expect them enable you to find out about something in someone else's data and edit it? For fuck's sake, that's some backasswards logic right there.
Ahhh well I don't expect many to extrapolate to potential design scenarios... It's not about us finding out about us, backasswards or otherwise... Flip the switch and what happens next ? Can what we know today as 'civil society' change rapidly...? The Kremlin apparently switched to typewriters...
If you think any state-sponsored actor is going to have trouble putting a face to your name and contact info, you're delusional.
I would actually agree with that, thanks to so many out there who don't think of potential uploading images of others without knowledge or permission (Photos tagging no off switch - actually the simplest of requests and questions? why not?) vs what is being done (gmail scanning) at the moment... Does 'trust' define 'Trojan Horse'? Would Apple's 'data' be deemed most reliable if (when) the kaka hits the fan? Is private assembly still a right under the constitution? Perhaps a reality check for the future: https://fakeapp.soft32.com Keep on truckin' as it has been said - the developer gravy train zeitgeist...? www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac
I pay for my email on a Microsoft Business Office 365 Exchange account to prevent this.
its like $20-30 a year. I mean surely we value our privacy that much don’t we? For email which we now use for literally everything.
But I guess if you want free you have to make compromises.
As others have pointed out, when you share emails with others on systems that scan, your email gets scanned as well. You can't escape the googlepocalyse.
I pay for my email on a Microsoft Business Office 365 Exchange account to prevent this.
its like $20-30 a year. I mean surely we value our privacy that much don’t we? For email which we now use for literally everything.
But I guess if you want free you have to make compromises.
As others have pointed out, when you share emails with others on systems that scan, your email gets scanned as well. You can't escape the googlepocalyse.
Or Microsoft. Or Apple. Or every other major email provider, all of who scan an email sent tota platformo email address. Or the developers whose apps were installed to help organize those emails, or help track that users travel plans or purchases.
IMO It's suspicious that Google was played as the only one who has a developer presence with assistance apps who are granted email access among other private account services with the owners permission. The same happens under iOS as far as I can tell and which none of the usual suspects here dispute.
It’s easy enough to not use a Gmail account. What’s a lot more difficult is not e-mailing with anybody who uses Gmail, which matters because presumably Google can read incoming messages too, and so often the incoming message content is included in a response, so third parties can read your e-mail whether or not you ever agreed to anything.
Mmm.
That's a good point. I didn't agree to Google and its partners reading emails I sent to a gmail account.
Google isn't reading emails. Agreed you didn't agree to anyone's else's app provider scanning them. I didn't agree to Microsoft or Yahoo or Zoho or most any other email service to do so either, yet because of organizer apps supplied from Apple's App Store it's quite likely my business appointments or social plans have made their way thru some 3rd party scanner installed on an acquaintance iPhone.
Curious if you install certain 3rd party planner/organizer apps. for example Edison or Airmail, if you grant some of those access to your Apple/iCloud Mail? I honestly don't know if Apple allows those types of apps. They allow them to access your calendar for instance but is email off-limits?
EDIT: After doing some small amount of research it appears Apple too allows apps to link to Mail.app. Can you confirm? It looks like it's not just Google and Microsoft and Yahoo and everyone else.
Links to mail.app are not the same thing. They can open a new message with a mailto: url, but they can't read email, which is what the concern is.
It’s easy enough to not use a Gmail account. What’s a lot more difficult is not e-mailing with anybody who uses Gmail, which matters because presumably Google can read incoming messages too, and so often the incoming message content is included in a response, so third parties can read your e-mail whether or not you ever agreed to anything.
If you're using Edison or Airmail or Spark on your Apple device can those developers "read" an email sent from me to your Apple email account? No one has answered that yet so perhaps you know?
It’s easy enough to not use a Gmail account. What’s a lot more difficult is not e-mailing with anybody who uses Gmail, which matters because presumably Google can read incoming messages too, and so often the incoming message content is included in a response, so third parties can read your e-mail whether or not you ever agreed to anything.
If you're using Edison or Airmail or Spark on your Apple device can those developers "read" an email sent from me to your Apple email account? No one has answered that yet so perhaps you know?
Common sense tells me that Apple must be able to read the emails because their kit can read emails out loud, but what's your point?
isn't that done in local processing on the device, not 'apple reading the emails'?
I believe it's both. Apple has server-side junk mail filtering, like all major mail services today, and you can also enable junk mail filtering in Mail.app's Preferences. The latter of which I haven't had a need to enable for many years now.
dewme said: The email pricey and security issue is a real problem for not only casual/home users but for corporate users as well. It is very easy for sensitive corporate information to leak out.
I've seen people routinely send account links with username and password to various services to someone else via email. I keep trying to tell people not to do that, but they all seem to think I'm just being overly cautious.
Equating Cambridge Analytica's attack on out elections to marketing is a VERY False Equivalency.
(And too all those: "Who? What? Nobody attacked our election!", That is what Cambridge Analytica specialized in. They were mercenaries selling out to the highest bidder to change elections)
And, the DNC bragged about having this capability (re: Obama campaign) and that the Republicans were missing out because they weren't as 'Internet savvy' at the time. https://overcast.fm/+BVkK6bMg/1:46:11
tallest skil said: Slippery slope isn’t a fallacy. I’m not sure what his post was supposed to imply, though.
Well, there are both. There is the slippery slope fallacy, as in.... if you eat that slice of pie, you'll just keep eating more and more, and then one day fall off the Empire State Building. Then there is the slippery slope argument, such as... if you keep eating that much sugar, you'll eventually cause insulin resistance, and become a diabetic.
bulk001 said: As someone pointed out, everyone knows (or should know) that if you get something for free, you are most likely the product. Not like Google hides this fact and it has just suddenly been discovered.
What about the people who pay for their G Suite account (including Gmail)?
lorin schultz said: My concern lies in not really being sure WHAT I've agreed to. Every time I try to read an EULA, one of three things happens:
1. The text is so long and opaque that my eyes glaze over and I come away with no more understanding than before i started reading. 2. I see some line that could be interpreted to mean "we can do whatever we want" so it's hard to know what I'm actually accepting. 3. The pertinent bits are buried in a mountain of minutia, again making it difficult for me to even FIND any sensitive clauses.
I don't accept that unexpected actions are okay as long as they're mention in the EULA, because those agreements are written by lawyers and the average consumer is unqualified to evaluate them. *IF* we accept the status quo, we are tacitly accepting the premise that users have a duty of due diligence, including seeking legal council, before using software. That seems, to me, an onerous burden given the commonplace nature of the activity. I don't think it's unreasonable to put the onus on the developer to clearly spell out, in plain language, exactly how the software may impact privacy. I may still choose to use it, if the benefits outweigh the risks/trade-offs (I still use Google search exactly BECAUSE Google does such a good job of tracking how I use it), so it seems like the only developers that would suffer would be those who actually have something to hide.
Exactly!
BTW, this is somewhat what GDPR is about, though since it's nearly impossible to comply, it will probably be used more as a witch-hunt tool. I'm doubting they will really go after the Google and Facebooks of the world. They will probably overlook all the little sites, web-stores, and services out there. But, when someone steps out of line that they want to go after, they have an almost guaranteed tool to nail them with.
It’s easy enough to not use a Gmail account. What’s a lot more difficult is not e-mailing with anybody who uses Gmail, which matters because presumably Google can read incoming messages too, and so often the incoming message content is included in a response, so third parties can read your e-mail whether or not you ever agreed to anything.
Mmm.
That's a good point. I didn't agree to Google and its partners reading emails I sent to a gmail account.
Google isn't reading emails. Agreed you didn't agree to anyone's else's app provider scanning them. I didn't agree to Microsoft or Yahoo or Zoho or most any other email service to do so either, yet because of organizer apps supplied from Apple's App Store it's quite likely my business appointments or social plans have made their way thru some 3rd party scanner installed on an acquaintance iPhone.
Curious if you install certain 3rd party planner/organizer apps. for example Edison or Airmail, if you grant some of those access to your Apple/iCloud Mail? I honestly don't know if Apple allows those types of apps. They allow them to access your calendar for instance but is email off-limits?
EDIT: After doing some small amount of research it appears Apple too allows apps to link to Mail.app. Can you confirm? It looks like it's not just Google and Microsoft and Yahoo and everyone else.
Links to mail.app are not the same thing. They can open a new message with a mailto: url, but they can't read email, which is what the concern
If you've installed an app on your iPhone intended to organize your inbox by subject or sender or whatever, and/or keep you apprised of schedules or vacation plans or airline reservations or purchases or work stuff contained in emails sent to your Apple-supplied email address then wouldn't that 3rd party developer have to be able to "read" your emails in order to provide the service you've asked for? Could it not include reading MY emails sent to you even tho I didn't tell Apple it was OK to do so? That's what the complaint here has been reading thru the thread, that 3rd party apps could be "reading" your emails and perhaps a human could be doing so. Do you know for certain? One of the apps called out for it was Edison. That's in the App Store. There's several apps with similar features there a well.
Yeah, AFAICT Apple allows it too based on the lack of response when I specifically called on several of the most prodigious and knowledgeable posters here, already engaging with the thread, to dispute it. None have.
Rayz at least made an initial reply, altho rather than answering going off on a separate tangent and StrangeDays completely avoided any comment at all about whether 3rd party devs might be able to "read" (with users permission) emails rec'd and with Apple's OK to do so (but not with mine if it's one of my emails being read).
To be clear if it does occur I'm not claiming it to be evil, or illegal, or sneaky, or "typical-Apple", or worthy of Congressional-investigation or anything else unlike some of those same posters I asked for comment, but if it goes on with Apple as well as Google/Microsoft/Verizon et al, and those posters were being honest in their concerns about it (and granted some may not have been), shouldn't casual readers be aware it can be happening in the Garden too? It's not just a Google thing even if portrayed that way, tho I think you should be questioning why it was.
Comments
1. The text is so long and opaque that my eyes glaze over and I come away with no more understanding than before i started reading.
2. I see some line that could be interpreted to mean "we can do whatever we want" so it's hard to know what I'm actually accepting.
3. The pertinent bits are buried in a mountain of minutia, again making it difficult for me to even FIND any sensitive clauses.
I don't accept that unexpected actions are okay as long as they're mention in the EULA, because those agreements are written by lawyers and the average consumer is unqualified to evaluate them. *IF* we accept the status quo, we are tacitly accepting the premise that users have a duty of due diligence, including seeking legal council, before using software. That seems, to me, an onerous burden given the commonplace nature of the activity. I don't think it's unreasonable to put the onus on the developer to clearly spell out, in plain language, exactly how the software may impact privacy. I may still choose to use it, if the benefits outweigh the risks/trade-offs (I still use Google search exactly BECAUSE Google does such a good job of tracking how I use it), so it seems like the only developers that would suffer would be those who actually have something to hide.
I don't have to disprove it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, which you're doing even if you won't come out and say you are ('Just askin'!' etc...typical FUD tactics)
So, unless you can prove Apple does it too, then you're just full of shit, again.
Yeah, it is. It's when the arguer goes "They do thing X, so therefore they will do thing Y! Oh nos!" It's fallacious.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope
https://criticalthinkeracademy.com/courses/informal-fallacies/lectures/1106551
http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Slippery-Slope.html
This item was discussed early in my logic courses at university.
I've been asking the same question from the get-go. No goal post moved. You making believe the article is only about the little thing that you want to be about doesn't make it so. Several posters in this thread stated their concern that Google would allow a third party to access their email for any reason.. They didn't worry about whether it was for marketing or anything else, it was the fact they did it. Just look at Rayz2016 post. He was concerned because he didn't give any third parties permission to see his emails yet according to the story there were some that could. It's only odd if the focus is only on Google but it's something that all major email providers are doing, Apple included. That's why I asked. If you don't know fine. If you do know but don't want to say maybe that's not so fine. You're not doing those concerned forum members any favors if you know something that they should also know. You don't usually hold back. Don't start now.
How often have you effectively said you're smarter than I am. Smarter than most folks here, right? So I ask you a question as an iPhone owner who knows much more about it than I do and you do everything but answer it. Dodge and weave, toss in an insult or two (by the way are you really this rude in real life?), do what you can to change the discussion into something you'd rather discuss instead of what was asked...Why the reluctance? Is your unwillingness to answer providing the answer?
I ask this every time I see something like this mentioned as if it were meaningful in some way, but never get an answer.
Apparently the best way to dodge facial recognition technology is to become a Juggalo
IMO It's suspicious that Google was played as the only one who has a developer presence with assistance apps who are granted email access among other private account services with the owners permission. The same happens under iOS as far as I can tell and which none of the usual suspects here dispute.
And, the DNC bragged about having this capability (re: Obama campaign) and that the Republicans were missing out because they weren't as 'Internet savvy' at the time.
https://overcast.fm/+BVkK6bMg/1:46:11
Well, there are both. There is the slippery slope fallacy, as in.... if you eat that slice of pie, you'll just keep eating more and more, and then one day fall off the Empire State Building. Then there is the slippery slope argument, such as... if you keep eating that much sugar, you'll eventually cause insulin resistance, and become a diabetic.
What about the people who pay for their G Suite account (including Gmail)?
Exactly!
BTW, this is somewhat what GDPR is about, though since it's nearly impossible to comply, it will probably be used more as a witch-hunt tool. I'm doubting they will really go after the Google and Facebooks of the world. They will probably overlook all the little sites, web-stores, and services out there. But, when someone steps out of line that they want to go after, they have an almost guaranteed tool to nail them with.
Yeah, AFAICT Apple allows it too based on the lack of response when I specifically called on several of the most prodigious and knowledgeable posters here, already engaging with the thread, to dispute it. None have.
Rayz at least made an initial reply, altho rather than answering going off on a separate tangent and StrangeDays completely avoided any comment at all about whether 3rd party devs might be able to "read" (with users permission) emails rec'd and with Apple's OK to do so (but not with mine if it's one of my emails being read).
To be clear if it does occur I'm not claiming it to be evil, or illegal, or sneaky, or "typical-Apple", or worthy of Congressional-investigation or anything else unlike some of those same posters I asked for comment, but if it goes on with Apple as well as Google/Microsoft/Verizon et al, and those posters were being honest in their concerns about it (and granted some may not have been), shouldn't casual readers be aware it can be happening in the Garden too? It's not just a Google thing even if portrayed that way, tho I think you should be questioning why it was.