4 ms·

You can stop using them

jedberg 3y ago
No you can't. If anyone emails you from Gmail, or you mail anyone at Gmail, then they are still using your data. If someone takes a picture of you and posts it on Instagram, they are still using your data. The only solution here are new laws about retaining ownership of your data even if it's been uploaded to a third party.
- tracerbulletx 3y ago
  You don't own pictures of yourself taken by other people.
  - westernpopular 3y ago
    You do in some countries
  - jedberg 3y ago
    That's not true. You can't publish a photo with me in it and make money without a release form. Training on a photo I took of someone else is definitely a gray area. But also, laws can be changed, which is my point.
    - amarshall 3y ago
      That’s not totally true either. First, it varies quite a bit on jurisdiction (but let’s say U.S.). Second, the lack of model release when it would be required does not mean the model suddenly owns the photograph, it rather just restricts how the owner may use it. Thirdly, in many U.S. states, a model release may only be needed when the photograph is used in promotion of a product, or if it was not taken in public. IANAL
    - TheHappyOddish 3y ago
      I absolutely can do that. Laws vary greatly around the world, and your (I'd wager North American) laws don't apply where I am.
    - olyjohn 3y ago
      LexisNexis makes money taking pictures of me in my car, tagging location data to it and selling that data back to other businesses like Lawyers and Insurance companies. I never signed a release.
- eigh0xohyeib6Te 3y ago
  If they are training on inbound e-mails from senders without Google accounts residing in or present at the time of sending in two-party consent states, they are likely in violation of the telephone call recording laws of those states.
  - keep_reading 3y ago
    Got any case law you can cite or are you just making this up?
    - eigh0xohyeib6Te 3y ago
      I'm not familiar with the case law, but e.g. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html In fact I doubt there's fully relevant case law, as I think the case would be that the trained model is the recording device, and it could be demonstrated that verbatim strings from presumed confidential communications are regurgitated by the model when appropriately prompted.
      - keep_reading 3y ago
        Google also reads your email for spam filtering purposes, including training their filters which has a financial benefit to themselves as well. Wouldn't this also be a violation of the same Two Party Consent law that you're trying to apply here?
  - jedberg 3y ago
    Pretty sure not. I think there is an implied ownership of the email once I send it. Just like if I send you a letter you now own the letter.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pvg 3y ago
People have a hard enough time not-posting this repetitive thread invariant so you can imagine how realistic 'stop using the email service you are using' is.

No you can't. If anyone emails you from Gmail, or you mail anyone at Gmail, then they are still using your data. If someone takes a picture of you and posts it on Instagram, they are still using your data. The only solution here are new laws about retaining ownership of your data even if it's been uploaded to a third party.

tracerbulletx 3y ago
You don't own pictures of yourself taken by other people.
- westernpopular 3y ago
  You do in some countries
- jedberg 3y ago
  That's not true. You can't publish a photo with me in it and make money without a release form. Training on a photo I took of someone else is definitely a gray area. But also, laws can be changed, which is my point.
  - amarshall 3y ago
    That’s not totally true either. First, it varies quite a bit on jurisdiction (but let’s say U.S.). Second, the lack of model release when it would be required does not mean the model suddenly owns the photograph, it rather just restricts how the owner may use it. Thirdly, in many U.S. states, a model release may only be needed when the photograph is used in promotion of a product, or if it was not taken in public. IANAL
  - TheHappyOddish 3y ago
    I absolutely can do that. Laws vary greatly around the world, and your (I'd wager North American) laws don't apply where I am.
  - olyjohn 3y ago
    LexisNexis makes money taking pictures of me in my car, tagging location data to it and selling that data back to other businesses like Lawyers and Insurance companies. I never signed a release.
eigh0xohyeib6Te 3y ago
If they are training on inbound e-mails from senders without Google accounts residing in or present at the time of sending in two-party consent states, they are likely in violation of the telephone call recording laws of those states.
- keep_reading 3y ago
  Got any case law you can cite or are you just making this up?
  - eigh0xohyeib6Te 3y ago
    I'm not familiar with the case law, but e.g. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632.html In fact I doubt there's fully relevant case law, as I think the case would be that the trained model is the recording device, and it could be demonstrated that verbatim strings from presumed confidential communications are regurgitated by the model when appropriately prompted.
    - keep_reading 3y ago
      Google also reads your email for spam filtering purposes, including training their filters which has a financial benefit to themselves as well. Wouldn't this also be a violation of the same Two Party Consent law that you're trying to apply here?
- jedberg 3y ago
  Pretty sure not. I think there is an implied ownership of the email once I send it. Just like if I send you a letter you now own the letter.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pvg 3y ago

People have a hard enough time not-posting this repetitive thread invariant so you can imagine how realistic 'stop using the email service you are using' is.