3 ms·

It is unethical, or at the very least, unsettling the way it is presented. I am actually in awe at how many folks - especially HN folks - are ok with this. Yea

It is unethical, or at the very least, unsettling the way it is presented. I am actually in awe at how many folks - especially HN folks - are ok with this. Years ago, I looked at my Google dashboard. They knew when i filed for taxes, how much was owed/reimbursed, my medical history. NONE of which I consented to Google using. Google is constantly eroding the expectation of privacy we have wrt to our emails (and probably other things that are expected to stay private, if you are on android), and this bothers me on a fundamental level. And additionally, we have constructed a world for ourselves such that not using these services to not expose private information is practically not an option anymore. I am a mixture of shocked and saddened that the HN crowd (at least so far, hudging from the comments) thinks it is a-OK for this to happen.

gowld 7y ago
Some people appreciate the convenience of an automated valet, and use opsec to have their sensitive conversations on secure channels. It's not any more secure to store all your data on a webmail server that doesn't provide the Assistant stuff -- they can still leak or sell that data.
nybble41 7y ago
> NONE of which I consented to Google using. And that is where you are wrong. You DID consent to this use of the information in your email when you signed up with Google as your email provider. They don't exactly make any secret of the fact that the emails in your account will be data-mined, both for the various assistant features they offer and for their own business purposes, including marketing. It is not Google's fault that you failed to consider the obvious implications of that consent. > And additionally, we have constructed a world for ourselves such that not using these services to not expose private information is practically not an option anymore. You have plenty of options. There are email providers other than Google, and means of communication other than email. Encryption is also widely available for those motivated enough to use it.
- notI 7y ago
  > You DID consent to this use of the information in your email when you signed up with Google as your email provider. No, I (not the original poster) didn't. I signed up with a Gmail account years before any of this existed, and I never would have guessed they would do what the original poster is concerned about. At no point was I informed that this type of stuff would start happening. I figured it out by reading a lot of tech news that the average person does not. As such, I've moved away from Gmail, but there are probably millions of people who aren't OK with it, but don't know it's happening.
  - mirkules 7y ago
    I signed up with gmail back when it was by invite only, around 2003. So you’re absolutely right.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > I signed up with a Gmail account years before any of this existed, and I never would have guessed they would do what the original poster is concerned about. Whether or not you realized how the information could be used, you did consent for Google to have that information by choosing them as your email provider. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of how email works would realize that the content of any unencrypted email is readily available to the entity which receives and stores the email, along with the sender's email provider and the operators of any services it might pass through prior to final delivery. If anything this is even more obvious with webmail services. The only reason people are upset at Google here is that Google is more up-front than the average free email provider about the extent of the information they have and how it can be used. They didn't have to reveal what they know or provide controls over it or use it to offer services for their users' benefit. Sure, they also use it for advertising—but that was always part of the deal, since long before any of these other features existed. Yet it's these aspects that benefit the user that people seem to complain about the most, because it highlights aspects of the relationship they wouldn't otherwise have bothered to consider.
    - mirkules 7y ago

gowld 7y ago

Some people appreciate the convenience of an automated valet, and use opsec to have their sensitive conversations on secure channels. It's not any more secure to store all your data on a webmail server that doesn't provide the Assistant stuff -- they can still leak or sell that data.

nybble41 7y ago

> NONE of which I consented to Google using. And that is where you are wrong. You DID consent to this use of the information in your email when you signed up with Google as your email provider. They don't exactly make any secret of the fact that the emails in your account will be data-mined, both for the various assistant features they offer and for their own business purposes, including marketing. It is not Google's fault that you failed to consider the obvious implications of that consent. > And additionally, we have constructed a world for ourselves such that not using these services to not expose private information is practically not an option anymore. You have plenty of options. There are email providers other than Google, and means of communication other than email. Encryption is also widely available for those motivated enough to use it.

notI 7y ago
> You DID consent to this use of the information in your email when you signed up with Google as your email provider. No, I (not the original poster) didn't. I signed up with a Gmail account years before any of this existed, and I never would have guessed they would do what the original poster is concerned about. At no point was I informed that this type of stuff would start happening. I figured it out by reading a lot of tech news that the average person does not. As such, I've moved away from Gmail, but there are probably millions of people who aren't OK with it, but don't know it's happening.
- mirkules 7y ago
  I signed up with gmail back when it was by invite only, around 2003. So you’re absolutely right.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > I signed up with a Gmail account years before any of this existed, and I never would have guessed they would do what the original poster is concerned about. Whether or not you realized how the information could be used, you did consent for Google to have that information by choosing them as your email provider. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of how email works would realize that the content of any unencrypted email is readily available to the entity which receives and stores the email, along with the sender's email provider and the operators of any services it might pass through prior to final delivery. If anything this is even more obvious with webmail services. The only reason people are upset at Google here is that Google is more up-front than the average free email provider about the extent of the information they have and how it can be used. They didn't have to reveal what they know or provide controls over it or use it to offer services for their users' benefit. Sure, they also use it for advertising—but that was always part of the deal, since long before any of these other features existed. Yet it's these aspects that benefit the user that people seem to complain about the most, because it highlights aspects of the relationship they wouldn't otherwise have bothered to consider.
  - mirkules 7y ago