1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.
2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.
3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.
There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.
The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.
As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too. I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.
Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.
Google doesn't scan your emails for anything that Apple doesn't AFAIK. Keyword scanning of free GMail accounts was completely stopped last year, in part because Google has gained so much more enterprise traction (paid business accounts have never been subject to ad scanning and are completely ad-free) and the free GMail ads added confusion and needless concern for business users.
So no Google is not "reading your emails". You can go back to emailing your GMail friends, even the ones with free accounts.
Curious thing; you can say they're not "reading your emails" now, at least since last June (though there always seems to be some potential ambiguity in the wording of these policies), but does this not imply very strongly that they were indeed clearly doing this for the previous 13 or so years?? This is more or less a rhetorical question, because it's obvious that they were.
The point being that there's no reason for people who care about such things to be lax now. This is merely proof that companies can and do change their policies at the drop of a hat, and while google changed their email scanning policy to (hopefully) a less invasive form in 2017, they could just as easily change it back in 2018 or 2019 or 2020, leaving all their users and non-users without any easy way to unwind all their past communications back out of those databases.
There really is no free lunch when using online services for personal communications.
I realize we're getting a bit off-track from facebook, but you're always coming to the rescue of goog, whether or not it's the main topic of an article.
1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.
2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.
3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.
There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.
The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.
As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too. I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.
Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.
Google doesn't scan your emails for anything that Apple doesn't AFAIK. Keyword scanning of free GMail accounts was completely stopped last year, in part because Google has gained so much more enterprise traction (paid business accounts have never been subject to ad scanning and are completely ad-free) and the free GMail ads added confusion and needless concern for business users.
So no Google is not "reading your emails". You can go back to emailing your GMail friends, even the ones with free accounts.
Curious thing; you can say they're not "reading your emails" now, at least since last June (though there always seems to be some potential ambiguity in the wording of these policies), but does this not imply very strongly that they were indeed clearly doing this for the previous 13 or so years?? This is more or less a rhetorical question, because it's obvious that they were.
Reading as in someone looking thru your emails and logging the content, or are you using "reading" as substitute wording for machine scanning for spam, malware and keyword ad matching? Pretty much every email provider does machine scanning, Apple included, and many do so for ads as well (my old email provider Earthlink for example and my wife's previous provider Yahoo) tho Google is no longer one of those.
Anyway IMO "reading your email" is a bit of a misnomer as it implies a physical human activity. Machine scanning would be the more proper description so no Google never was reading your emails.
1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.
2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.
3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.
There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.
The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.
As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too. I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.
Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.
Google doesn't scan your emails for anything that Apple doesn't AFAIK. Keyword scanning of free GMail accounts was completely stopped last year, in part because Google has gained so much more enterprise traction (paid business accounts have never been subject to ad scanning and are completely ad-free) and the free GMail ads added confusion and needless concern for business users.
So no Google is not "reading your emails". You can go back to emailing your GMail friends, even the ones with free accounts.
Curious thing; you can say they're not "reading your emails" now, at least since last June (though there always seems to be some potential ambiguity in the wording of these policies), but does this not imply very strongly that they were indeed clearly doing this for the previous 13 or so years?? This is more or less a rhetorical question, because it's obvious that they were.
Reading as in someone looking thru your emails and logging the content, or are you using "reading" as substitute wording for machine scanning for spam, malware and keyword ad matching? Pretty much every email provider does machine scanning, Apple included, and many do so for ads as well (my old email provider Earthlink for example and my wife's previous provider Yahoo) tho Google is no longer one of those.
Anyway IMO "reading your email" is a bit of a misnomer as it implies a physical human activity. Machine scanning would be the more proper description so no Google never was reading your emails.
Pedantic to the point of ignoring the meat of the post. Sigh. No, "reading" is NOT a misnomer.
Remember those machines programmers used to use back in the day, what were they called again...? Oh yeah, card readers. What do grocery store clerks use again...? Oh yeah, barcode readers. In fact the wikipedia page for Barcode Readers interchangeably switches between "readers" and "scanners" throughout the entire page. The point is, google did in fact READ every word of every email for many years, to build up advertising profiles. That is not in question. You can call it scanning if you like, it's irrelevant to the conversations here.
Your comments attempting to contrast reading vs. scanning are merely subterfuge.
1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.
2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.
3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.
There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.
The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.
As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too. I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.
Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.
Google doesn't scan your emails for anything that Apple doesn't AFAIK. Keyword scanning of free GMail accounts was completely stopped last year, in part because Google has gained so much more enterprise traction (paid business accounts have never been subject to ad scanning and are completely ad-free) and the free GMail ads added confusion and needless concern for business users.
So no Google is not "reading your emails". You can go back to emailing your GMail friends, even the ones with free accounts.
Curious thing; you can say they're not "reading your emails" now, at least since last June (though there always seems to be some potential ambiguity in the wording of these policies), but does this not imply very strongly that they were indeed clearly doing this for the previous 13 or so years?? This is more or less a rhetorical question, because it's obvious that they were.
Reading as in someone looking thru your emails and logging the content, or are you using "reading" as substitute wording for machine scanning for spam, malware and keyword ad matching? Pretty much every email provider does machine scanning, Apple included, and many do so for ads as well (my old email provider Earthlink for example and my wife's previous provider Yahoo) tho Google is no longer one of those.
Anyway IMO "reading your email" is a bit of a misnomer as it implies a physical human activity. Machine scanning would be the more proper description so no Google never was reading your emails.
Pedantic to the point of ignoring the meat of the post. Sigh. No, "reading" is NOT a misnomer... Your comments attempting to contrast reading vs. scanning are merely subterfuge.
For what? Google very plainly scanned for ad keywords in addition to those things that every other email provider scans for. Scanned, past tense. They no longer scan for ad keywords but technically exactly like Apple does "read every word" as you prefer to put it for other purposes such as protecting company services, legal requirements, and user security. I'll stick with "machine scanning" as being more descriptive.
If you prefer to believe "reading" is the more informative term you're welcome to use it of course. Not sure you really want to say "Apple is reading every word in your email" tho which is what you are effectively saying.
Amid the furor over Silicon Valley companies mishandling personal data, Apple is very near the top of the charts for the most trusted company, with the majority of respondents pointing the finger at Facebook for being the least trust-worthy.
There have been various incidents over the years in which Apple has earned the distrust of its customers. Apple Maps. The 2010 antenna controversy. The battery-throttling that came to light last year. But according to a recent survey, it appears Apple is much more trusted by customers than certain other tech giants.
A Recode survey released Tuesday asked American respondents which tech companies are trusted the least with your personal information. In the survey, 56 percent answered Facebook. Google was a distant second, with 5 percent, with Uber and Twitter each getting 3 percent.
As for Apple, it tied for sixth with two other companies, Snap and Amazon, with just 2 percent. Recode added that 20 percent selected none of the above.
The survey is certainly a sign that Facebook is in a heap of trouble, as result of missteps by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other decision makers when it comes to data security and transparency. It also indicates that, at this moment, user trust in Apple is relatively high, and that the throttling controversy hasn't had a long-lasting effect.
But it's also clear that there's some recency bias at work here. A major reason for Facebook ranking so highly in this survey is that Facebook is currently all over the news for things it has done to earn user distrust, a controversy that is fresh in everyone's mind. If the survey had been taken during the height of the Apple throttling story, or the day after some flashpoint in last year's Travis Kalanick brouhaha at Uber, the survey results may very well have turned out quite a bit differently for those companies.
A survey by The Verge last October, while not precisely the same question, found that around 15 percent each answered that they "greatly distrust" Facebook and Twitter, while around ten percent gave that answer for Apple. In 2013, Apple dropped out of the top 20 in the Ponemon Institute's ranking of most trusted companies in terms of privacy.
Apple periodically suffers in public polling from the "never Apple" crowd in surveys such as these.
The Results are all in how & to whom the poll is presented. Statistics can show a lot. I prefer the raw numbers and I can draw my own conclusions. I doubt PC users read this column / blog / site very much.
I watched Die Hard a couple of nights ago on my Apple TV using a media app that was not the stock Apple Movies one, nor Netflix or Amazon.
The next day at work, when I was reading AI, one of the ads was "binge on John Mclane" - an ad for all the Die Hard films on the same app that I had watched the movie on the previous night!
It essentially shows how insidious data mining has become. I really need to be more careful with my data. I was pretty gobsmacked how an app on my Apple TV could share information with the ads served on AI.
This poll is totally nonsense for me. I know for the fact that Apple is strict when it comes to data and security but knowing Microsoft as well makes this poll nonsense at all
I did not listen to the whole Zuck testifying in DC, I saw a few highlights and knew most of what he would be doing was CYA and try not to admit anything bad.
All anyone needs to know is how he answer the this question, "Would tell everyone which hotel you are staying at"
Watch his face when he was asked that question it took him some time to realize what he was being asked, he finally said "No" to the question and when he was asked why not, just said "No' again. He values his pricey more than your privacy. Do you think is person information is being scraped by this third parties, so you think his account is accessible to others? I am surprise no one ask him is his account it open as everyone else's.
Zuckerberg is blatantly self-interested, as are all people. He owns the vast majority of company stock, so of course he has seen no wrong in the policies of his company.
There is not doubt about that, when people make statements you always have to follow the money, in this case he has the most to loose thus his answer are going to be slanted in that direction.
He stated all his personally information was also shared with Cambridge. He made the statement but offer no proof it actually happen. It easy to say he was compromised, but, did it really happen.
I did not listen to the whole Zuck testifying in DC, I saw a few highlights and knew most of what he would be doing was CYA and try not to admit anything bad.
All anyone needs to know is how he answer the this question, "Would tell everyone which hotel you are staying at"
Watch his face when he was asked that question it took him some time to realize what he was being asked, he finally said "No" to the question and when he was asked why not, just said "No' again. He values his pricey more than your privacy. Do you think is person information is being scraped by this third parties, so you think his account is accessible to others? I am surprise no one ask him is his account it open as everyone else's.
Zuckerberg is blatantly self-interested, as are all people. He owns the vast majority of company stock, so of course he has seen no wrong in the policies of his company.
There is not doubt about that, when people make statements you always have to follow the money, in this case he has the most to loose thus his answer are going to be slanted in that direction.
He stated all his personally information was also shared with Cambridge. He made the statement but offer no proof it actually happen. It easy to say he was compromised, but, did it really happen.
It certainly looks like he was worried about some information of his getting leaked.
Have Microsoft had any privacy issues? Not sure why people are so surprised that they are ranked lower than Apple, since Apple has had has a few hiccups along the way, with earlier versions of iOS not protecting personal data from badly behaved apps as well as it does now.
1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.
2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.
3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.
There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.
The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.
As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too. I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.
Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.
How do you manage this in real life? I have the same policy, but sometimes it can be challenging in real life.
Do you use a privacy-oriented email provider, or your company's, or self-managed? Do you withhold your email address entirely from people who use services like gmail?
The thing is, if you share your email address with other people at all, even if you don't send them email with personal info, all it takes is for them to email you with personal information about yourself, and now that information about *you* gets sucked into *their* email provider's data sets. google changed their email data-collection practices last year (apparently they've gathered enough info through that particular channel!), but historically they fought very hard in courts around the world to protect their right to gather that data, including that of non-users. Clearly most providers do gather, analyze and keep personal information gleaned from emails, whether inbound or outbound.
Here's the email no one who cares about their privacy wants to receive from their gmail/hotmail/yahoo-using buddy:
"Yo Bob, happy 48th birthday! How are you doing these days, is your liver still holding up?? After all those awesome drinking parties, one can only hope, lol Anyway, don't worry, I haven't told a soul about your fling with Diane. Well, except Joe Mendez, but he's cool, you can trust him. Later dude!"
Yeah it not easy, I use a paid POP based email service, as such once I remove the email from the inbox, it is schedule to be deleted from their servers, it is not perfect, but companies which are not selling your information can not afford to keep your data on their servers. I only have 10meg of email server space so I download to my computer and delete immediately. I did look at self-manage at one point I did set up mail server in my house too many issues to deal with. If you want to see my email history you need access to my computer. At most my service provider only has the last 30 days, they clean out the deleted items which are older than 30 days or exceed the 10Meg. I have no reason to believe they hanging on to emails much longer.
Yes, I get emails from people who use gmail, i just refuse to respond to their emails. they can call if it is important. I never use work email for personal stuff, this is for a number of reasons, primarily I never want to give my employer a reason to question what I am doing. I also have a Hotmail account which dates back to the 90's, it was set up prior to them requiring you to share who you were. I have no name or anything personally associate with the account, and only access via a VPN from another country. I have been asked to update the personal information and I just made it all up. I use this email account with websites i do not trust, if they get compromise it just a Hotmail account.
I am also getting to the point of if I know someone has Android phone I will not give them my cell phone number, since most idiot store their contact with google and who know what google is doing with that information. I have already share here that I found Google had some how connected my Daughter's online actives with me and my work computer and I am seeing ads which are obvious geared towards a 20yr old girl. So Google AI systems are going a muck, since they can not distinguish me from my daughter. I suspect it due to me blocking my identity and our home public IP address.
Have Microsoft had any privacy issues? Not sure why people are so surprised that they are ranked lower than Apple, since Apple has had has a few hiccups along the way, with earlier versions of iOS not protecting personal data from badly behaved apps as well as it does now.
Of course MS has had issues with data breaches, not to mention decades of insecurity in their OSes that have allowed hackers to steal personal data, take over HW (like web cams), and even turning your WinPC into a bot.
These are all from the first page of a single google search:
1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.
2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.
3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.
There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.
The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.
As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too. I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.
Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.
Google doesn't scan your emails for anything that Apple doesn't AFAIK. Keyword scanning of free GMail accounts was completely stopped last year, in part because Google has gained so much more enterprise traction (paid business accounts have never been subject to ad scanning and are completely ad-free) and the free GMail ads added confusion and needless concern for business users.
So no Google is not "reading your emails". You can go back to emailing your GMail friends, even the ones with free accounts.
Gatorguy, you have no proof they are not reading emails, I do have proof and share it many times on this website. Unless you work at Google and have internal documented proof they are not doing this, you need to stop defending what you do not have personal direct experience with. I know what Google states in the EUA, I also know what they tell their corporate customers. Their systems are automated and they do not have someone monitoring what the system is doing on each user account. I have number of example of ads showing up on my personal computer based on work emails going through the gmail system, ads which were based on companies I did business with and had no personal interaction with, they were strictly B2B no B2C. Google connected the work emails content *not key words" to my web activity at home. BTW, I worked with this company for years never had an issue until email was moved gmail, then work activity was then connect to personal activity.
I will also offer this up as well, the company I worked for who use Google enterprise systems, our Legal and HR department were not allow to use the Gmail system for any internal or external communication which were company sensitive information. They were kept on an internal outlook servers none of their mail was routed through the Google systems. I worked with the law department and asked them why and all they said was Google could not assure them email on their servers could meet our internal compliance with confidentiality as well as retention policies. To be more specific, if you in court and claiming something is confidential, but it on and external server outside company control and can not provide only authorize people have access to the information, the information could be deemed non-confidential.
Unless you have internal proof of Google actual real activities, please stop defending what they are doing and stop pointing to the EUA as proof. I have far more direct experience with this than your personal email account with them.
1) I’m going to continue to use FB because it’s the only reasonable way for me to stay connected to many people, but people should know what that they are the product and how to reasonably secure themselves from run he mill data thrives.
2) It’s hard to put faith in a pool that puts Twitter and Apple so close.
3) I didn’t see this referenced but the “logic” speaks volumes.
There is a thing called a phone which is really good at allow you to talk to people and share important things in real time.
The only difference between all these companies from a survey stand point and Facebook is blind faith, People are not blind to Facebook anymore, they now know what they wish not to know. For all the other company people still do not know so ignorance is bliss.
As well as phone, I find email pretty useful too. I just don't get why anyone needs FB to 'keep in touch'.
Yes but I do not email people who use free email accounts, not interesting in Google and such reading my emails. Just because someone else signed away their privacy, they are not signing mine away.
Google doesn't scan your emails for anything that Apple doesn't AFAIK. Keyword scanning of free GMail accounts was completely stopped last year, in part because Google has gained so much more enterprise traction (paid business accounts have never been subject to ad scanning and are completely ad-free) and the free GMail ads added confusion and needless concern for business users.
So no Google is not "reading your emails". You can go back to emailing your GMail friends, even the ones with free accounts.
Gatorguy, you have no proof they are not reading emails, I do have proof and share it many times on this website. Unless you have internal proof of Google actual real activities, please stop defending what they are doing and stop pointing to the EUA as proof. I have far more direct experience with this than your personal email account with them.
I use Google's enterprise GSuite services with my businesses on top of a personal email account i've maintained for years so yup lots of direct knowledge instead of the second hand "someone at my company said" that you seem to be relying on. https://gsuite.google.com/security/?secure-by-design_activeEl=data-centers
But hey you have a chance at collecting substantial dollars for yourself via a lawsuit and causing $B's in harm to Google from government fines and legal fees, class-action lawsuits and congressional investigations by just offering up proof they are lying in their EULA. So what's stopping you? You'd be a hero to dozens of Apple fans here. My guess: Lack of evidence.
Have Microsoft had any privacy issues? Not sure why people are so surprised that they are ranked lower than Apple, since Apple has had has a few hiccups along the way, with earlier versions of iOS not protecting personal data from badly behaved apps as well as it does now.
Of course MS has had issues with data breaches, not to mention decades of insecurity in their OSes that have allowed hackers to steal personal data, take over HW (like web cams), and even turning your WinPC into a bot.
These are all from the first page of a single google search:
PS: I'm glad to see that all the sites I list are using SSL. 👍
Had to Google it though, didn't you? I don't remember hearing of any of those breaches, and most of them don't directly affect consumers; I'm not surprised that they didn't really register for answerers of this survey. Plus, they're more about data security than trusting MS to not sell or misuse your data. Not that security isn't important of course, but it might have been a factor for the surveyed people in contextualising the question - i.e. if they thought of it as "who do you trust to not pass on your data to dodgy third parties" then MS might score higher than on a broader security question.
Have Microsoft had any privacy issues? Not sure why people are so surprised that they are ranked lower than Apple, since Apple has had has a few hiccups along the way, with earlier versions of iOS not protecting personal data from badly behaved apps as well as it does now.
Of course MS has had issues with data breaches, not to mention decades of insecurity in their OSes that have allowed hackers to steal personal data, take over HW (like web cams), and even turning your WinPC into a bot.
These are all from the first page of a single google search:
PS: I'm glad to see that all the sites I list are using SSL. 👍
Had to Google it though, didn't you? I don't remember hearing of any of those breaches, and most of them don't directly affect consumers; I'm not surprised that they didn't really register for answerers of this survey. Plus, they're more about data security than trusting MS to not sell or misuse your data. Not that security isn't important of course, but it might have been a factor for the surveyed people in contextualising the question - i.e. if they thought of it as "who do you trust to not pass on your data to dodgy third parties" then MS might score higher than on a broader security question.
Of course I had to google it. Can you remember every URL of every article you've ever read?
This survey confirms the enormous credulity of all FB clients. They should know the business concept of FB is to SELL its users' details to anybody wiling to obtain those details. This explains why Zuckerberg is one of the richest persons on the planet, selling what he does not even own but what the rest of the world freely hands over to him.
The media reported on the so-called vulnerability of FB being victim of third parties stealing its information. The media ignore or fail to report FB itself SELLS these data to the highest bidder and goes smiling to the bank.
All users of FB are very happy because as they have many "friends" sharing information 24/7/365. Four out of five youngsters in the US own an iPhone. The figures for the rest of the richer world are most probably the same. This explains why they are all glued to their smartphones 24/7/365 and become very a-social and solitary individuals on the planet, most probably for the rest of their lives. SAD ...
Comments
Curious thing; you can say they're not "reading your emails" now, at least since last June (though there always seems to be some potential ambiguity in the wording of these policies), but does this not imply very strongly that they were indeed clearly doing this for the previous 13 or so years?? This is more or less a rhetorical question, because it's obvious that they were.
The point being that there's no reason for people who care about such things to be lax now. This is merely proof that companies can and do change their policies at the drop of a hat, and while google changed their email scanning policy to (hopefully) a less invasive form in 2017, they could just as easily change it back in 2018 or 2019 or 2020, leaving all their users and non-users without any easy way to unwind all their past communications back out of those databases.
There really is no free lunch when using online services for personal communications.
I realize we're getting a bit off-track from facebook, but you're always coming to the rescue of goog, whether or not it's the main topic of an article.
Anyway IMO "reading your email" is a bit of a misnomer as it implies a physical human activity. Machine scanning would be the more proper description so no Google never was reading your emails.
Pedantic to the point of ignoring the meat of the post. Sigh. No, "reading" is NOT a misnomer.
Remember those machines programmers used to use back in the day, what were they called again...? Oh yeah, card readers. What do grocery store clerks use again...? Oh yeah, barcode readers. In fact the wikipedia page for Barcode Readers interchangeably switches between "readers" and "scanners" throughout the entire page. The point is, google did in fact READ every word of every email for many years, to build up advertising profiles. That is not in question. You can call it scanning if you like, it's irrelevant to the conversations here.
Your comments attempting to contrast reading vs. scanning are merely subterfuge.
If you prefer to believe "reading" is the more informative term you're welcome to use it of course. Not sure you really want to say "Apple is reading every word in your email" tho which is what you are effectively saying.
Statistics can show a lot. I prefer the raw numbers and I can draw my own conclusions.
I doubt PC users read this column / blog / site very much.
Its a manufactured news cycle.
I watched Die Hard a couple of nights ago on my Apple TV using a media app that was not the stock Apple Movies one, nor Netflix or Amazon.
The next day at work, when I was reading AI, one of the ads was "binge on John Mclane" - an ad for all the Die Hard films on the same app that I had watched the movie on the previous night!
It essentially shows how insidious data mining has become. I really need to be more careful with my data. I was pretty gobsmacked how an app on my Apple TV could share information with the ads served on AI.
There is not doubt about that, when people make statements you always have to follow the money, in this case he has the most to loose thus his answer are going to be slanted in that direction.
He stated all his personally information was also shared with Cambridge. He made the statement but offer no proof it actually happen. It easy to say he was compromised, but, did it really happen.
Yeah it not easy, I use a paid POP based email service, as such once I remove the email from the inbox, it is schedule to be deleted from their servers, it is not perfect, but companies which are not selling your information can not afford to keep your data on their servers. I only have 10meg of email server space so I download to my computer and delete immediately. I did look at self-manage at one point I did set up mail server in my house too many issues to deal with. If you want to see my email history you need access to my computer. At most my service provider only has the last 30 days, they clean out the deleted items which are older than 30 days or exceed the 10Meg. I have no reason to believe they hanging on to emails much longer.
Yes, I get emails from people who use gmail, i just refuse to respond to their emails. they can call if it is important. I never use work email for personal stuff, this is for a number of reasons, primarily I never want to give my employer a reason to question what I am doing. I also have a Hotmail account which dates back to the 90's, it was set up prior to them requiring you to share who you were. I have no name or anything personally associate with the account, and only access via a VPN from another country. I have been asked to update the personal information and I just made it all up. I use this email account with websites i do not trust, if they get compromise it just a Hotmail account.
I am also getting to the point of if I know someone has Android phone I will not give them my cell phone number, since most idiot store their contact with google and who know what google is doing with that information. I have already share here that I found Google had some how connected my Daughter's online actives with me and my work computer and I am seeing ads which are obvious geared towards a 20yr old girl. So Google AI systems are going a muck, since they can not distinguish me from my daughter. I suspect it due to me blocking my identity and our home public IP address.
These are all from the first page of a single google search:
PS: I'm glad to see that all the sites I list are using SSL. 👍
Gatorguy, you have no proof they are not reading emails, I do have proof and share it many times on this website. Unless you work at Google and have internal documented proof they are not doing this, you need to stop defending what you do not have personal direct experience with. I know what Google states in the EUA, I also know what they tell their corporate customers. Their systems are automated and they do not have someone monitoring what the system is doing on each user account. I have number of example of ads showing up on my personal computer based on work emails going through the gmail system, ads which were based on companies I did business with and had no personal interaction with, they were strictly B2B no B2C. Google connected the work emails content *not key words" to my web activity at home. BTW, I worked with this company for years never had an issue until email was moved gmail, then work activity was then connect to personal activity.
I will also offer this up as well, the company I worked for who use Google enterprise systems, our Legal and HR department were not allow to use the Gmail system for any internal or external communication which were company sensitive information. They were kept on an internal outlook servers none of their mail was routed through the Google systems. I worked with the law department and asked them why and all they said was Google could not assure them email on their servers could meet our internal compliance with confidentiality as well as retention policies. To be more specific, if you in court and claiming something is confidential, but it on and external server outside company control and can not provide only authorize people have access to the information, the information could be deemed non-confidential.
Unless you have internal proof of Google actual real activities, please stop defending what they are doing and stop pointing to the EUA as proof. I have far more direct experience with this than your personal email account with them.
https://gsuite.google.com/security/?secure-by-design_activeEl=data-centers
But hey you have a chance at collecting substantial dollars for yourself via a lawsuit and causing $B's in harm to Google from government fines and legal fees, class-action lawsuits and congressional investigations by just offering up proof they are lying in their EULA. So what's stopping you? You'd be a hero to dozens of Apple fans here.
My guess: Lack of evidence.
The media reported on the so-called vulnerability of FB being victim of third parties stealing its information. The media ignore or fail to report FB itself SELLS these data to the highest bidder and goes smiling to the bank.
All users of FB are very happy because as they have many "friends" sharing information 24/7/365. Four out of five youngsters in the US own an iPhone. The figures for the rest of the richer world are most probably the same. This explains why they are all glued to their smartphones 24/7/365 and become very a-social and solitary individuals on the planet, most probably for the rest of their lives. SAD ...