4 ms·

when you sign up for a service that does shit with your email, and give it access to your email account, of course the service can read your email. This seems

when you sign up for a service that does shit with your email, and give it access to your email account, of course the service can read your email. This seems pretty obvious to me. There are many useful services that do this (SaneBox for example) but DUH how do you expect them to do anything intelligent with your email if they can't read it? This is all predicated upon the user granting access to their email account though, so this is roughly equivalent to saying "People you sent a letter to can read your letter" ... duh that's why you did it.

reaperducer 8y ago
when you sign up for a service that does shit with your email, and give it access to your email account, of course the service can read your email. The article isn't about some automated service looking at your e-mail. It's about actual humans reading it. Big difference.
- PantaloonFlames 8y ago
  Yes, that’s the point. Granting access to an App, a person doesn’t assume the all will copy out your email so that it can be read or analyzed by humans.
salawat 8y ago
Most people don't count the post office as having a letter "sent" to them. They are just handlers.
salawat 8y ago
Apparently, I struck a nerve. The attitude of developers with regard to data flowing their systems demonstrates some of the most remarkable lapses in common sense and historical understanding I have ever seen. Electronic-Mail. That comes with a plurality of baggage associated with the voncept due to the societal concept of Mail. In the U.S. at least, one's mail IS sacrosanct. The Postal Service, being the message handlers that "set the standard" as it were for other logistics and postage businesses to be measured against DO NOT MESS WITH THE MESSAGE, beyond setting limits on transiting parcels to facilitate smooth operation of the system. Emphasis mine. They do not "maintain state" about message history either. They do not scan to detect trends. They do not try to "sanitize" that data to sell to marketers. Just because there ISN'T a codified rule, DOESN'T mean it's a good idea to go around playing with expectations literally over a century old. If you call yourself a Mail provider of any sort, don't be surprised when people find you looking at correspondences that you end up getting blowback. Stories (entertainment, not journalism) are filled with people eavesdropping on messages BECAUSE it is exceptional behavior. It wouldn't be worth writing about otherwise. The type of behavior seems to be especially problematic in the tech world because there is seemingly no cost, or visibility to the non-tech-savvy user that it's happening. Stop treating the user's data like it's yours. The system is yours. It would have no worth if they weren't using it. Playing word games and hiding behind the legalese has worked thus far, but the tech literacy of the general populace IS increasing. And if the general populace likes anything, it's common sense and cognitive resonance. Tech will be beaten with the stick once the tech literacy is there. The privacy reckoning will come if tech doesn't get its act together and GET WITH THE LAST TWO CENTURIES.

reaperducer 8y ago

when you sign up for a service that does shit with your email, and give it access to your email account, of course the service can read your email. The article isn't about some automated service looking at your e-mail. It's about actual humans reading it. Big difference.

PantaloonFlames 8y ago
Yes, that’s the point. Granting access to an App, a person doesn’t assume the all will copy out your email so that it can be read or analyzed by humans.

salawat 8y ago

Most people don't count the post office as having a letter "sent" to them. They are just handlers.

salawat 8y ago

Apparently, I struck a nerve. The attitude of developers with regard to data flowing their systems demonstrates some of the most remarkable lapses in common sense and historical understanding I have ever seen. Electronic-Mail. That comes with a plurality of baggage associated with the voncept due to the societal concept of Mail. In the U.S. at least, one's mail IS sacrosanct. The Postal Service, being the message handlers that "set the standard" as it were for other logistics and postage businesses to be measured against DO NOT MESS WITH THE MESSAGE, beyond setting limits on transiting parcels to facilitate smooth operation of the system. Emphasis mine. They do not "maintain state" about message history either. They do not scan to detect trends. They do not try to "sanitize" that data to sell to marketers. Just because there ISN'T a codified rule, DOESN'T mean it's a good idea to go around playing with expectations literally over a century old. If you call yourself a Mail provider of any sort, don't be surprised when people find you looking at correspondences that you end up getting blowback. Stories (entertainment, not journalism) are filled with people eavesdropping on messages BECAUSE it is exceptional behavior. It wouldn't be worth writing about otherwise. The type of behavior seems to be especially problematic in the tech world because there is seemingly no cost, or visibility to the non-tech-savvy user that it's happening. Stop treating the user's data like it's yours. The system is yours. It would have no worth if they weren't using it. Playing word games and hiding behind the legalese has worked thus far, but the tech literacy of the general populace IS increasing. And if the general populace likes anything, it's common sense and cognitive resonance. Tech will be beaten with the stick once the tech literacy is there. The privacy reckoning will come if tech doesn't get its act together and GET WITH THE LAST TWO CENTURIES.