8 ms·

You're spreading conspiracy theories. There is no way Google is listening to your phone calls and using the information for ads.

throwaway936482 6y ago
Just like they would never scan the content of your emails and serve up targeted ads based on that... Oh, wait, they were doing that up until 2017...
- function_seven 6y ago
  And they were upfront with it. When GMail was released, they straight up told users that’s how they were paying for the enormous 1GB storage.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Ask average person - hell, average techie - about it, and I'm pretty certain you'll discover they don't know what you're talking about. They really weren't up front about it, they might have just not been hiding it very hard. Part of the solution to the tech vs. privacy problems could be forcing companies to be actually up front about their business models. After all, it's not wrong for an individual to give up their data, after being informed about what is requested and what will be done with it. The wrong behavior is having a business model that depends on most customers not being aware their data is being mined and used against them.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      It was obvious. The ads were displayed right next to the messages and we're relevant to the messages being shown. At launch, they prominently described how this worked on the sign up page. https://web.archive.org/web/20040410020148/http://gmail.google.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20040410020148/http://gmail.goog... To my mind, the biggest privacy violator that doesn't admit it's privacy violations right now is Apple. Even as a non-Apple user, I have my WiFi location slurped up by Apple, and they don't give me any way to opt out. People who use Apple devices have it far worse.
      - disillusioned 6y ago
        Yeah, this. The ads were COMPLETELY RELEVANT TO THE EMAILS. My recollection was that this was the very obvious trade-off/not-at-all-secret when they first introduced ads to Gmail. (I don't think Gmail had ads initially?)
    - jowsie 6y ago
      > They really weren't up front about it, they might have just not been hiding it very hard. It was the answer to the main question everyone had, how are they providing 1GB (huge at the time) inbox space for FREE? Because they were serving relevant ads against your mail. It was in no way a secret.
  - decasteve 6y ago
    Are you sure? Where's the citation to back that up? What I remember are many products released around that time by Google, et al that were sold to us as: we're making gobs of money off of our core offering (e.g. search + little text-based ads), that we can afford to all this other stuff for the benefit of humanity. So much was sold as "making the world a better place". The other sales pitch we got amounted to, "don't worry about it, we'll monetize later." Nobody was up-front in those days. Which is why not a month has gone by where ToS or Privacy Policy changes need another click to accept to keep using. The frog was certainly slow-boiled.
    - function_seven 6y ago
      I remembered the discussions surrounding it when it was first released. Here's one submission on Slashdot that discussed the email scanning: https://slashdot.org/story/04/04/25/1438250/googles-gmail-goes-into-beta-for-blogger-users https://slashdot.org/story/04/04/25/1438250/googles-gmail-go... Here's one comment on slashdot: [0]. I have to laugh at this one [1]. It almost seems reversed these days (not quite, but kinda) I'll see if I can dig up any press releases or official Google communications about it, but with linkrot what it is, it may take a while. (EDIT: Here's Google's privacy policy when Gmail was released [2]) [0] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105335&cid=8965115 https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105335&cid=8965115 [1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105335&cid=8965194 https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105335&cid=8965194 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/privacy.html https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.goog...
      - decasteve 6y ago
        Much has changed in the nature of the beast but you're right, the terms do state the obvious. Still feels sinister. Reading those old comments and privacy policy brought so much flooding back to me. The value proposition has changed but not in the way that was feared at the time. We're certainly inundated with ads to a greater degree than it was at the time. They never turned around and charged for it but they certainly require a lot more personal information to have an account these days. There was so much hate for Microsoft but it was wishful thinking that Google would turn out differently.
  - throwaway936482 6y ago
    I'm not going to trust memory, mine, yours or anyone's on this and don't have time to traipse back in time to fully research it, but that is besides the point. The point is that Google have form for engaging in privacy violations that extend to the scanning of personal communications for advertising purposes without gaining informed consent (no I don't think click through t&C's that can be changed by Google on a whim count). Worrying that they might do similar with verbal communications for advertising or other purposes is a legitimate concern that shouldn't be dismissed.
    - function_seven 6y ago
      I agree with you on click-though T&Cs! That's a shitty place to hide what you're doing with customer trust and data. 100% agree there. But it was widely known and discussed at the time, and included in their policy on day one[0]. It was the plan to make 1GB work. It was their answer when people asked, skeptically, how they could make money giving away such unfathomable storage "for free". And, as far as privacy policies go, that document is well organized and addresses the scanning in the very first section. You don't have to trust my memory of this, but their above-board handling of keyword scanning in emails is not an example that illustrates how they will be evil with surreptitious voice recording on their other products. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/privacy.html https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.goog...
  - everdrive 6y ago
    I don’t think users really understood this, both in fact and in practice. Now, you may rightly argue that this is on the users, but I’d just say that perspectives have changed drastically.
ineedasername 6y ago
The NSA on the other hand... well, I'll just say that every once in a while, when I lose something, I'll whisper into my phone: "I know you're listening, I know you're watching. And I really need to find my car keys". Then I'll wait 5 minutes or so, and step outside, and there will be a small note taped to my door. Last time it said, "You left them in the car --a friend"
- prewett 6y ago
  "The Secret Police said 'We have secrets. We have many secrets. We desire all secrets. We do not have your secrets and that is what we are after, your secrets. ... However our mood is melancholy. There is a secret sigh that we sigh, secretly. We yearn to be known, acknowledged, admired even. What is the good of omnipotence if nobody knows? However that is a secret, that sorrow."' "Engineer-Private Paul Klee Misplaces an Airplane Between Milbertshofen and Cambrai, March 1916", Donald Barthelme
nkrisc 6y ago
Why is there no way they're doing it? They're certainly capable of it. I think it's pretty unlikely they are, but it would be trivial for them to do so.
- escanda 6y ago
  Because they won't supposedly use your Wifi connection to investigate on you. That could be unfair.
marricks 6y ago
If you told someone 2008 that the fun scrappy startup offering Gmail would be reading your emails for ads* (see reply to this!) until 2017 and only stopped when another tech company had a massive leak of personal information which helped sway a presidential election* people would call you absolutely mad. Emails were sacred back then and it took Google and long and slow creep to face little backlash when they started reading our emails. I see no reason why listening devices will be any different. If the information is available and valuable to Google (and me talking to my spouse about buying a new computer next week sure is!) they will slowly walk towards getting it. The steps are pretty clear: 1. Have listening device which only listens to "OK Google" mass adopted 2. Increase capabilities for EASILY defensible safety reasons, listening to alarms, then screams, then personal threats, etc 3. Face backlash over 2. and easily defend it because who wouldn't want to save children from burning buildings etc. 4. Public begins to paint privacy minded folks as crazies for wanting to burn children alive. 5. Repeat 2 through 4 a few times. 6. Ease into that ad listening because everyone either thinks you do it already or they just don't care because they're exhausted hearing people raise alarms for 2. I'm not saying this is a nefarious management plan to ease into surveillance either. Google's MO is put money and time into making a feature useful then eventually monetize it. Making "OK Google" listening devices useful in ways the public finds acceptable is where they're at now. Eventually they will have paved the way for it to be profitable and palatable for the public when it's always listening to us. * Google changed this policy right around Cambridge Anlytica time
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > If you told someone 2008 that the fun scrappy startup offering Gmail would be reading your emails Google explicitly stated their would read your emails to show ads next to them at launch. This was a surprise to nobody. > and only stopped It never stopped reading mail. How do you think searching your inbox or filtering spam work? In light of this, the rest of your post is pure conspiracy theory nonsense. Google was upfront about the reasons for reading your mail at the beginning. Why should any of that change?
  - marricks 6y ago
    Wow, Google did lunch with ad scanning huh! I misremembered the controversy, I followed it closely at launch but that was loong ago. That does hurt my premise but I think it overall still holds: - Google did stop reading email for ads in 2017 as I said in an other post[1]. - Google does have a policy of innovate then monetize later. That was explicitly what they did with Google Maps - GMail was a good (but bit wrong as I brought up!) example of creeping surveillance, but Chrome provides a good example as well[2]. Google sells ads, it's products will be optimized to gather information for it. [1] https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-gmail-ads-emails-1202477321/ https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-gmail-ads-email... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/google-chrome-privacy/google-hit-with-new-privacy-lawsuit-over-chrome-browser-data-idUSL2N2EZ24W https://www.reuters.com/article/google-chrome-privacy/google...
twirlock 6y ago
>There is no way Then why does your comment read as satire?
annadane 6y ago
NO way? Really? You sure about that? Seriously?

throwaway936482 6y ago

Just like they would never scan the content of your emails and serve up targeted ads based on that... Oh, wait, they were doing that up until 2017...

function_seven 6y ago
And they were upfront with it. When GMail was released, they straight up told users that’s how they were paying for the enormous 1GB storage.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Ask average person - hell, average techie - about it, and I'm pretty certain you'll discover they don't know what you're talking about. They really weren't up front about it, they might have just not been hiding it very hard. Part of the solution to the tech vs. privacy problems could be forcing companies to be actually up front about their business models. After all, it's not wrong for an individual to give up their data, after being informed about what is requested and what will be done with it. The wrong behavior is having a business model that depends on most customers not being aware their data is being mined and used against them.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    It was obvious. The ads were displayed right next to the messages and we're relevant to the messages being shown. At launch, they prominently described how this worked on the sign up page. https://web.archive.org/web/20040410020148/http://gmail.google.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20040410020148/http://gmail.goog... To my mind, the biggest privacy violator that doesn't admit it's privacy violations right now is Apple. Even as a non-Apple user, I have my WiFi location slurped up by Apple, and they don't give me any way to opt out. People who use Apple devices have it far worse.
    - disillusioned 6y ago
      Yeah, this. The ads were COMPLETELY RELEVANT TO THE EMAILS. My recollection was that this was the very obvious trade-off/not-at-all-secret when they first introduced ads to Gmail. (I don't think Gmail had ads initially?)
  - jowsie 6y ago
    > They really weren't up front about it, they might have just not been hiding it very hard. It was the answer to the main question everyone had, how are they providing 1GB (huge at the time) inbox space for FREE? Because they were serving relevant ads against your mail. It was in no way a secret.
- decasteve 6y ago
  Are you sure? Where's the citation to back that up? What I remember are many products released around that time by Google, et al that were sold to us as: we're making gobs of money off of our core offering (e.g. search + little text-based ads), that we can afford to all this other stuff for the benefit of humanity. So much was sold as "making the world a better place". The other sales pitch we got amounted to, "don't worry about it, we'll monetize later." Nobody was up-front in those days. Which is why not a month has gone by where ToS or Privacy Policy changes need another click to accept to keep using. The frog was certainly slow-boiled.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    I remembered the discussions surrounding it when it was first released. Here's one submission on Slashdot that discussed the email scanning: https://slashdot.org/story/04/04/25/1438250/googles-gmail-goes-into-beta-for-blogger-users https://slashdot.org/story/04/04/25/1438250/googles-gmail-go... Here's one comment on slashdot: [0]. I have to laugh at this one [1]. It almost seems reversed these days (not quite, but kinda) I'll see if I can dig up any press releases or official Google communications about it, but with linkrot what it is, it may take a while. (EDIT: Here's Google's privacy policy when Gmail was released [2]) [0] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105335&cid=8965115 https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105335&cid=8965115 [1] https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105335&cid=8965194 https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=105335&cid=8965194 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/privacy.html https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.goog...
    - decasteve 6y ago
      Much has changed in the nature of the beast but you're right, the terms do state the obvious. Still feels sinister. Reading those old comments and privacy policy brought so much flooding back to me. The value proposition has changed but not in the way that was feared at the time. We're certainly inundated with ads to a greater degree than it was at the time. They never turned around and charged for it but they certainly require a lot more personal information to have an account these days. There was so much hate for Microsoft but it was wishful thinking that Google would turn out differently.
- throwaway936482 6y ago
  I'm not going to trust memory, mine, yours or anyone's on this and don't have time to traipse back in time to fully research it, but that is besides the point. The point is that Google have form for engaging in privacy violations that extend to the scanning of personal communications for advertising purposes without gaining informed consent (no I don't think click through t&C's that can be changed by Google on a whim count). Worrying that they might do similar with verbal communications for advertising or other purposes is a legitimate concern that shouldn't be dismissed.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    I agree with you on click-though T&Cs! That's a shitty place to hide what you're doing with customer trust and data. 100% agree there. But it was widely known and discussed at the time, and included in their policy on day one[0]. It was the plan to make 1GB work. It was their answer when people asked, skeptically, how they could make money giving away such unfathomable storage "for free". And, as far as privacy policies go, that document is well organized and addresses the scanning in the very first section. You don't have to trust my memory of this, but their above-board handling of keyword scanning in emails is not an example that illustrates how they will be evil with surreptitious voice recording on their other products. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/privacy.html https://web.archive.org/web/20040404134002/http://gmail.goog...
- everdrive 6y ago
  I don’t think users really understood this, both in fact and in practice. Now, you may rightly argue that this is on the users, but I’d just say that perspectives have changed drastically.

ineedasername 6y ago

The NSA on the other hand... well, I'll just say that every once in a while, when I lose something, I'll whisper into my phone: "I know you're listening, I know you're watching. And I really need to find my car keys". Then I'll wait 5 minutes or so, and step outside, and there will be a small note taped to my door. Last time it said, "You left them in the car --a friend"

prewett 6y ago
"The Secret Police said 'We have secrets. We have many secrets. We desire all secrets. We do not have your secrets and that is what we are after, your secrets. ... However our mood is melancholy. There is a secret sigh that we sigh, secretly. We yearn to be known, acknowledged, admired even. What is the good of omnipotence if nobody knows? However that is a secret, that sorrow."' "Engineer-Private Paul Klee Misplaces an Airplane Between Milbertshofen and Cambrai, March 1916", Donald Barthelme

nkrisc 6y ago

Why is there no way they're doing it? They're certainly capable of it. I think it's pretty unlikely they are, but it would be trivial for them to do so.

escanda 6y ago
Because they won't supposedly use your Wifi connection to investigate on you. That could be unfair.

marricks 6y ago

If you told someone 2008 that the fun scrappy startup offering Gmail would be reading your emails for ads* (see reply to this!) until 2017 and only stopped when another tech company had a massive leak of personal information which helped sway a presidential election* people would call you absolutely mad. Emails were sacred back then and it took Google and long and slow creep to face little backlash when they started reading our emails. I see no reason why listening devices will be any different. If the information is available and valuable to Google (and me talking to my spouse about buying a new computer next week sure is!) they will slowly walk towards getting it. The steps are pretty clear: 1. Have listening device which only listens to "OK Google" mass adopted 2. Increase capabilities for EASILY defensible safety reasons, listening to alarms, then screams, then personal threats, etc 3. Face backlash over 2. and easily defend it because who wouldn't want to save children from burning buildings etc. 4. Public begins to paint privacy minded folks as crazies for wanting to burn children alive. 5. Repeat 2 through 4 a few times. 6. Ease into that ad listening because everyone either thinks you do it already or they just don't care because they're exhausted hearing people raise alarms for 2. I'm not saying this is a nefarious management plan to ease into surveillance either. Google's MO is put money and time into making a feature useful then eventually monetize it. Making "OK Google" listening devices useful in ways the public finds acceptable is where they're at now. Eventually they will have paved the way for it to be profitable and palatable for the public when it's always listening to us. * Google changed this policy right around Cambridge Anlytica time

lern_too_spel 6y ago
> If you told someone 2008 that the fun scrappy startup offering Gmail would be reading your emails Google explicitly stated their would read your emails to show ads next to them at launch. This was a surprise to nobody. > and only stopped It never stopped reading mail. How do you think searching your inbox or filtering spam work? In light of this, the rest of your post is pure conspiracy theory nonsense. Google was upfront about the reasons for reading your mail at the beginning. Why should any of that change?
- marricks 6y ago
  Wow, Google did lunch with ad scanning huh! I misremembered the controversy, I followed it closely at launch but that was loong ago. That does hurt my premise but I think it overall still holds: - Google did stop reading email for ads in 2017 as I said in an other post[1]. - Google does have a policy of innovate then monetize later. That was explicitly what they did with Google Maps - GMail was a good (but bit wrong as I brought up!) example of creeping surveillance, but Chrome provides a good example as well[2]. Google sells ads, it's products will be optimized to gather information for it. [1] https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-gmail-ads-emails-1202477321/ https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-gmail-ads-email... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/google-chrome-privacy/google-hit-with-new-privacy-lawsuit-over-chrome-browser-data-idUSL2N2EZ24W https://www.reuters.com/article/google-chrome-privacy/google...

twirlock 6y ago

>There is no way Then why does your comment read as satire?

annadane 6y ago

NO way? Really? You sure about that? Seriously?