Survey Results

Jeremy Falcon9-Oct-07 6:10

9-Oct-07 6:10

Balboos wrote:
And why in the world would you imagine/believe/etc. that it simply stops at that?

Well, most of us don't really have anything worth hiding (unless your mom's meatloaf really tasting bad is a secret). Of course, Google could get some demographics off this (and probably do). Considering there's no ads in my face all day though, I can't say I mind that much.

I use GMail for work and personal communications. Would it piss me off Google was caught spying? Yeah. Would it be the end of the world? No, because I wouldn't use GMail or any web-based client for that matter for sensitive communications period. Or at the very least, I would encrypt a text file attachment when using it.

Also, keep in mind, even with a diff client, when email is stored on the server, ANY provider could have the potential to scan emails. At least Google, stated some intents. We just get scared because apparently Google is good at it. Laugh | :laugh:

Jeremy Falcon
Oatmeal, It's What's for Dinner.[^]

W∴ Balboos, GHB9-Oct-07 6:25

9-Oct-07 6:25

Jeremy Falcon wrote:
ANY provider could have the potential to scan emails

We're not talking about potential - we're talking about stated intent!

Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Well, most of us don't really have anything worth hiding

I was really hoping you'd not post that particular line. So - if you don't have anything worth hiding, then you won't mind if someone opens your (snail) mail and reads it? And your phone calls? Watch your vote? In fact, that particular "What Me Worry?" line is, in my opinion, dispicable in nature.

It matters not if what you're doing privately is right or wrong. Privacy isn't a judgement, it's a human right.

Perhaps you ought to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...[^] - although couched in the contexts of politics, it may be applied, analogously, to personal privacy. Indeed - how can the two be thought of seperately?

Shrugging one's shoulders? It's happened before. As a rule, it ends up bad.

"If not me, who? If not now, when?"

Jeremy Falcon9-Oct-07 6:58

9-Oct-07 6:58

Balboos wrote:
We're not talking about potential - we're talking about stated intent!

Actually, their stated intent was was for ads only and that no human would read it. They never said they were going to snoop around and have a jolly good time reading people's emails over a beer.

Balboos wrote:
I was really hoping you'd not post that particular line. So - if you don't have anything worth hiding, then you won't mind if someone opens your (snail) mail and reads it? And your phone calls? Watch your vote? In fact, that particular "What Me Worry?" line is, in my opinion, dispicable in nature.

Well, I didn't expect you to rationalize. For one, snail mail tends to have more personal traces (ie, bank statements). Two, there's a difference between you knowing beforehand of someone listening in. The key difference is here choice. Nobody is forcing this on me, and I don't use gmail for anything worth hiding (as I already stated). Tell me, do you automatically hang up when you call a customer service dept. and hear "this call may be recorded for training purposes"? If you don't, then you're a hypocrite.

Balboos wrote:
Perhaps you ought to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...[^] - although couched in the contexts of politics, it may be applied, analogously, to personal privacy. Indeed - how can the two be thought of seperately?

And like, ya know, it's been scientifically proven that being a poet makes someone always right. Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

Jeremy Falcon
Oatmeal, It's What's for Dinner.[^]

W∴ Balboos, GHB9-Oct-07 7:14

9-Oct-07 7:14

Jeremy Falcon wrote:
no human would read it.

Obviously no human would read any particular mail. The data, however, will be accumulated to build up a miticulous profile of the senders.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:
The key difference is here choice. Nobody is forcing this on me,

Here, you're wrong: it is not a matter of choice for anyone who sends mail to your gmail account. They, too, are grabbed up in the grist-mill. If it were only 'you', I'd put it in the category of cigarette smokers: you're welcome to die, so long as I don't have to breath the smoke or pay the bills.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:
do you automatically hang up when you call a customer service dept. and hear "this call may be recorded for training purposes"?

This is a bogus analogy: If I call customer service, I have business with them and the information whether recorded or transcribed falls into two categories: (a) identification to prove who I am (which is info they already have), and (b) information I want them to have - for I did, after all, call them! To add a (c): if I didn't initiate the call, then they don't get anything from me. Giving information to an unknown stranger would be just plain stupid.

Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And like, ya know, it's been scientifically proven that being a poet makes someone always right

Here no evil. See no evil. Speak no evil. - Always a good answer to philosphy that might cause one to give pause in their judgements. The use of "always right" in your comment on poets? If I'm not mistaken, it's an obtuse reference to dismiss the concept without addressing it. Works for TV commercials. Political propaganda. Not that well here . . .

Jeremy Falcon9-Oct-07 7:25

9-Oct-07 7:25

Balboos wrote:
Obviously no human would read any particular mail. The data, however, will be accumulated to build up a miticulous profile of the senders.

No duh. I already mentioned demographics. Which I'm sure are used for ads. Google isn't the only company that uses/sells/buy demographics. In fact, I've bet you've purchased products from companies that have used or collected them - especially if you register for their product. It's not a big deal if a computer finds out I like to eat pizza. Really, the world will move on. Pizza hut finds this out every time you order as well. You don't think they just delete their customer data do you?

Balboos wrote:
Here, you're wrong: it is not a matter of choice for anyone who sends mail to your gmail account. They, too, are grabbed up in the grist-mill.

Really, because I don't notice anyone putting a gun to your head making you email my gmail account. There's still a choice.

Balboos wrote:
Here, you're wrong:

Nope, you just like to argue rather than read.

Balboos wrote:
If I call customer service, I have business with them and the information whether recorded or transcribed falls into two categories: (a) identification to prove who I am (which is info they already have), and (b) information I want them to have - for I did, after all, call them! To add a (c): if I didn't initiate the call, then they don't get anything from me. Giving information to an unknown stranger would be just plain stupid.

All hypocritical and you know it. Of course, this is completely different from me creating an account of my own free will and sending off emails of my own free will alright. Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

In fact, Google has less personally identifiable information than that cust. service dept. too.

Balboos wrote:
Always a good answer to philosphy that might cause one to give pause in their judgements. The use of "always right" in your comment on poets? If I'm not mistaken, it's an obtuse reference to dismiss the concept without addressing it. Works for TV commercials. Political propaganda. Not that well here . . .

Um, no. It's called false credibility. You used it, I was pointing it out. Sorry for going over your head.

Jeremy Falcon
Oatmeal, It's What's for Dinner.[^]

Jeremy Falcon9-Oct-07 7:28

9-Oct-07 7:28

Balboos wrote:
Works for TV commercials.

Btw, those TV stations track ratings. You may wanna stop watching those commercials. Ya know, if you're a firm believer in not being tracked.

Jeremy Falcon
Oatmeal, It's What's for Dinner.[^]

W∴ Balboos, GHB9-Oct-07 7:37

9-Oct-07 7:37

I was about to reply to your last post, but this one proved what your last strongly indicated: an inability to have your decisions questioned, and a poor understanding of the consequenses of cumulative actions.

Perhaps you should consider scratching 'database' off your list of skill sets.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

Jeremy Falcon9-Oct-07 8:22

9-Oct-07 8:22

Balboos wrote:
I was about to reply to your last post, but this one proved what your last strongly indicated: an inability to have your decisions questioned, and a poor understanding of the consequenses of cumulative actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[^]

Have fun feeling all warm and fuzzy with yourself. Wink | ;)

Jeremy Falcon
Oatmeal, It's What's for Dinner.[^]

W∴ Balboos, GHB9-Oct-07 8:34

9-Oct-07 8:34

Ad Hominem

It's natural that you'd be familiar with the term - just consider your own reference to the credibility of poets in one of your earlier posts to this thread.

Per my previous post - since the context was clearly one of personal behavior, choice, their impacts on others (who send mail to your gmail account), &etc., the fact that the reference would be to you, as an individual, is a natural consequence. Recursive usage of the phrase it would seem!

As per the database reference: if you understood the power available from catagorizing and linking all of the information they mine after storing it in database(s), you'd understand the magnitude of the problem - and it's multi-dimensional, as they create networks of aquaintaces, mutual interests, and so forth, from content, sender, recipient(s).

I think we can both agree on one thing - enough time has been wasted upon this branch of the thread.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

Jeremy Falcon9-Oct-07 8:48

9-Oct-07 8:48

Balboos wrote:
It's natural that you'd be familiar with the term - just consider your own reference to the credibility of poets in one of your earlier posts to this thread.

I was not attacking you; I was attacking your logical basis of using false credibility. You're obviously not bright enough to know the difference (that's attacking you btw, I figured an example would help).

Balboos wrote:
Per my previous post - since the context was clearly one of personal behavior, choice, their impacts on others (who send mail to your gmail account), &etc., the fact that the reference would be to you, as an individual, is a natural consequence. Recursive usage of the phrase it would seem!

And you're still a hypocrite in who you choose to share you "personal" information with.

Balboos wrote:
As per the database reference: if you understood the power available from catagorizing and linking all of the information they mine after storing it in database(s), you'd understand the magnitude of the problem - and it's multi-dimensional, as they create networks of aquaintaces, mutual interests, and so forth, from content, sender, recipient(s).

Which shows how much you really know. I'm an expert DBA in MySQL and MS-SQL, and I can fully attest that Google isn't using something as simple as SQL for their bots. If you think the aggregative nature of SQL is sufficient in itself, then I suggest you stop postulating and start learning.

Furthermore, it's not like Google is the only company that can do this - which I've said all along. And, you can bet there's companies that you have use/used which do the same as well. In fact, CP even tracks you, so maybe you should leave this site.

Jeremy Falcon
Oatmeal, It's What's for Dinner.[^]

John M. Drescher10-Oct-07 8:14

John M. Drescher

10-Oct-07 8:14

Balboos wrote:
was really hoping you'd not post that particular line. So - if you don't have anything worth hiding, then you won't mind if someone opens your (snail) mail and reads it? And your phone calls? Watch your vote?

I would not mind any of that. And if someone wants to get on a ladder to try to catch my coming out of the shower more power to them as well. I have nothing at all hide.

John

W∴ Balboos, GHB10-Oct-07 8:26

10-Oct-07 8:26

John M. Drescher wrote:
I would not mind any of that. And if someone wants to get on a ladder to try to catch my coming out of the shower more power to them as well. I have nothing at all hide.

This is what 'they all say' - until it really happens. Then they go ballisitic. And I'll bet you would, too.

These scenarios are the 'Desert Island' scenarios - where one is asked, "If you were stranded on a desert island, would you . . ." The answers are always meaningless: there is no consequence for it.

If you were starving, would you eat human flesh from a parent that died? You can easily say 'no', as you're not starving. Or yes, since you don't have to really eat it.

And so it goes with your pontification on your pristine life style - you've nothing to hide.

You don't really get it: it isn't about having things to hide - it's about basic humanity.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein

dighn9-Oct-07 8:08

dighn

9-Oct-07 8:08

It bothers me. That's why I started using my gmail account only for various web registrations. Sure they can still collect information on what sites I'm registered to, but they can have that information.

Tohid Azizi11-Oct-07 2:16

Tohid Azizi

11-Oct-07 2:16

Exactly! It's my story too.
Thank you GMAIL Smile | :)

-Tohid Azizi