5 ms·

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.

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.