3 ms·

I don’t get your point. These are third party extensions that you opt into. The alternative is giving a third party your password and letting them use IMAP. Thi

• jasonvorhe 8y ago
  He most likely didn't read the article.
  • squarefoot 8y ago
    Possibly, but the article also gives incoherent information with respect to time. For example, earlier it writes: "Google said in a letter to U.S. senators made public on Thursday that it relies on automated scans and reports from security researchers to monitor add-ons after launch, but did not respond to lawmakers’ request to say how many have been caught violating the company’s policies. " And then: "Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment." Which is OK, then at the end: "House lawmakers asked Google in a separate letter in July whether smartphones with its voice assistant tool can or do collect so-called “non-triggered” audio in order to recognize phrases like “Okay Google” that activate voice controls. The lawmakers cited media reports and said there had been suggestions that third-party applications have access to and use this non-triggered data without disclosure to users." So what was the response from Google about this issue which they were asked two months earlier, although the article cites it at the very end? Does the "did not immediately respond to a request for comment" also apply to that one?