5 ms·

Pulled from the other thread, a way to delete all of your activity. https://myactivity.google.com/delete-activity https://myactivity.google.com/delete-activity

ceejayoz 7y ago
I don't think you can delete purchases from there. When I hit the "remove purchase" button, it even says "To remove this purchase, delete the email."
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  I'm not sure I fully understand the objection here. The purchase list is a view over your email. They have the email, and they have the code to construct the purchase from the email. What possible additional security would there be in deleting the derived object if they still have the source material and the means to reconstruct the derived object? If you don't trust them to handle the derived object according to your desires, then deleting it should not give you any assurances, since they could just rebuild it from the source material and the code they have on hand. I think what you're really looking for is a mechanism like, "don't use this derived object in ways I find objectionable." I'm not sure exactly what that would look like for you; it would probably be different for every individual. For what it's worth, at least if you believe the news and Google's public statements, it doesn't use the contents of your email for ad targeting.
  - jeromegv 7y ago
    We should be allowed to keep our past emails without having them build a purchase object of everything we have ever bought.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      Why does it matter, though? They claim the list is there purely for your own personal consumption. If that's true, and you don't care to use it, it costs you nothing that it exists. If that's false, then it doesn't matter whether you can delete it or not, because if they're willing to lie about its uses, they would also be willing to lie about whether they deleted it.
      - la_barba 7y ago
        > They claim the list is there purely for your own personal consumption The problem is that they are constantly thinking along these lines, and building products to enable this. Also, they are an advertising company, so this is something that is of value to them. Fox guarding the hen-house stuff. In my mind, its kind of like hiring an IP lawyer at a company. Even if your company is not litigious, there is a chance that at some point the lawyer initiates legal action to "prove their worth" or even advance their career inside the company. Same thing with this, why is Google paying developers to build this product if they're never going to use it? What is the business justification? Its certainly not for PR or marketing reasons. Having an apparatus ready to go is very different than having no apparatus. This is part of the reason why weapon buildups are bad across the board even if people claim "nobody" is going to use them.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        > In my mind, its kind of like hiring an IP lawyer at a company. Even if your company is not litigious, there is a chance that at some point the lawyer initiates legal action to "prove their worth" or even advance their career inside the company. Same thing with this, why is Google paying developers to build this product if they're never going to use it? What is the business justification? Its certainly not for PR or marketing reasons. Useful features attract users. Users are a good thing. Like I can apply the exact same argument to email labels: Why does google let you label emails? They're an advertising company, so labels must be valuable to them. What is the business justification? It's certainly not PR or marketing. And now suddenly labels sound like an ominous feature, anti-user or anti-privacy or something, maybe. Which they aren't. But the implication is there.
        la_barba 7y ago
        >Useful features attract users. Users are a good thing. I think its a bit of a stretch calling this feature useful but I suppose you can re-define anything to be useful. Ads are useful too, because you can save money by buying the exact thing that you need. Its too bad that people are downloading ad-blockers by the millions. Google snooping on emails and extracting purchase related information to stick inside a dossier on you, is in no way the same as you voluntarily, creating a label for an email which they have already scanned anyway. An advertising company wants to know what you're buying, how frequently, and how much you spend on things. That is like a goldmine for them. The labels, are almost noise because its data that is an abstraction away from telling advertisers what will get you to open your wallet - which is the end goal. >Like I can apply the exact same argument to email labels: I don't think you can, and I could not follow the argument you made.
    - 0xffff2 7y ago
      Why should you be able to do that on Google's servers?
  - la_barba 7y ago
    I think the problem also is that Google scans incoming emails sent by non-google users who haven't agreed to such scanning. (Edit: also with personal domains, a sender may have no idea if this email will eventually find its way on Googles servers) > at least if you believe the news and Google's public statements, it doesn't use the contents of your email for ad targeting. True, but its important to note that it used to do that for many years. They didn't make it clear if they removed information mined from previous scanning of emails.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      > I think the problem also is that Google scans incoming emails sent by non-google users who haven't agreed to such scanning. That is definitely not the problem. Email you send is owned by its recipient. Generally, the recipient can do what they want with it, including delegating to Google and allowing Google to scan it for purchase information. > They didn't make it clear if they removed information mined from previous scanning of emails. That information was ephemeral, IIRC. It was scanned when you loaded an email to allow advertisers to make bids for ads relevant to the given email. In any case, bits rot at Google like anywhere else. If a feature or system is no longer being maintained, it quickly stops working. There is approximately zero chance that they retained any data that they theoretically would have generated from emails scanned half a decade ago.
      - la_barba 7y ago
        >That is definitely not the problem. Email you send is owned by its recipient. Generally, the recipient can do what they want with it, including delegating to Google and allowing Google to scan it for purchase information. I don't agree that everyone thinks this is the case.
        JohnFen 7y ago
        Legally speaking, in the US anyway, this is the case.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
Redoubts 7y ago
Does this work at all for location history? My web activity has nicer controls like "delete after 3 months", but Maps keeps everything years after I learned and disabled the 24/7 location tracking from my old Android phone.

ceejayoz 7y ago

I don't think you can delete purchases from there. When I hit the "remove purchase" button, it even says "To remove this purchase, delete the email."

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
I'm not sure I fully understand the objection here. The purchase list is a view over your email. They have the email, and they have the code to construct the purchase from the email. What possible additional security would there be in deleting the derived object if they still have the source material and the means to reconstruct the derived object? If you don't trust them to handle the derived object according to your desires, then deleting it should not give you any assurances, since they could just rebuild it from the source material and the code they have on hand. I think what you're really looking for is a mechanism like, "don't use this derived object in ways I find objectionable." I'm not sure exactly what that would look like for you; it would probably be different for every individual. For what it's worth, at least if you believe the news and Google's public statements, it doesn't use the contents of your email for ad targeting.
- jeromegv 7y ago
  We should be allowed to keep our past emails without having them build a purchase object of everything we have ever bought.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    Why does it matter, though? They claim the list is there purely for your own personal consumption. If that's true, and you don't care to use it, it costs you nothing that it exists. If that's false, then it doesn't matter whether you can delete it or not, because if they're willing to lie about its uses, they would also be willing to lie about whether they deleted it.
    - la_barba 7y ago
      > They claim the list is there purely for your own personal consumption The problem is that they are constantly thinking along these lines, and building products to enable this. Also, they are an advertising company, so this is something that is of value to them. Fox guarding the hen-house stuff. In my mind, its kind of like hiring an IP lawyer at a company. Even if your company is not litigious, there is a chance that at some point the lawyer initiates legal action to "prove their worth" or even advance their career inside the company. Same thing with this, why is Google paying developers to build this product if they're never going to use it? What is the business justification? Its certainly not for PR or marketing reasons. Having an apparatus ready to go is very different than having no apparatus. This is part of the reason why weapon buildups are bad across the board even if people claim "nobody" is going to use them.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        > In my mind, its kind of like hiring an IP lawyer at a company. Even if your company is not litigious, there is a chance that at some point the lawyer initiates legal action to "prove their worth" or even advance their career inside the company. Same thing with this, why is Google paying developers to build this product if they're never going to use it? What is the business justification? Its certainly not for PR or marketing reasons. Useful features attract users. Users are a good thing. Like I can apply the exact same argument to email labels: Why does google let you label emails? They're an advertising company, so labels must be valuable to them. What is the business justification? It's certainly not PR or marketing. And now suddenly labels sound like an ominous feature, anti-user or anti-privacy or something, maybe. Which they aren't. But the implication is there.
        la_barba 7y ago
        >Useful features attract users. Users are a good thing. I think its a bit of a stretch calling this feature useful but I suppose you can re-define anything to be useful. Ads are useful too, because you can save money by buying the exact thing that you need. Its too bad that people are downloading ad-blockers by the millions. Google snooping on emails and extracting purchase related information to stick inside a dossier on you, is in no way the same as you voluntarily, creating a label for an email which they have already scanned anyway. An advertising company wants to know what you're buying, how frequently, and how much you spend on things. That is like a goldmine for them. The labels, are almost noise because its data that is an abstraction away from telling advertisers what will get you to open your wallet - which is the end goal. >Like I can apply the exact same argument to email labels: I don't think you can, and I could not follow the argument you made.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    Why should you be able to do that on Google's servers?
- la_barba 7y ago
  I think the problem also is that Google scans incoming emails sent by non-google users who haven't agreed to such scanning. (Edit: also with personal domains, a sender may have no idea if this email will eventually find its way on Googles servers) > at least if you believe the news and Google's public statements, it doesn't use the contents of your email for ad targeting. True, but its important to note that it used to do that for many years. They didn't make it clear if they removed information mined from previous scanning of emails.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    > I think the problem also is that Google scans incoming emails sent by non-google users who haven't agreed to such scanning. That is definitely not the problem. Email you send is owned by its recipient. Generally, the recipient can do what they want with it, including delegating to Google and allowing Google to scan it for purchase information. > They didn't make it clear if they removed information mined from previous scanning of emails. That information was ephemeral, IIRC. It was scanned when you loaded an email to allow advertisers to make bids for ads relevant to the given email. In any case, bits rot at Google like anywhere else. If a feature or system is no longer being maintained, it quickly stops working. There is approximately zero chance that they retained any data that they theoretically would have generated from emails scanned half a decade ago.
    - la_barba 7y ago
      >That is definitely not the problem. Email you send is owned by its recipient. Generally, the recipient can do what they want with it, including delegating to Google and allowing Google to scan it for purchase information. I don't agree that everyone thinks this is the case.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        Legally speaking, in the US anyway, this is the case.
  - JohnFen 7y ago

Redoubts 7y ago

Does this work at all for location history? My web activity has nicer controls like "delete after 3 months", but Maps keeps everything years after I learned and disabled the 24/7 location tracking from my old Android phone.