2 ms·

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.

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...