6 ms·

This is sortof hillarious, Google fighting for this when they mine ALL of your data...

by bifrost 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago
They are not fighting the mining by the government, only the secrecy. They are fighting for the right to tell you what is happening, just like they tell you what they are doing with your data. The cynic in me thinks that Google is deliberately fighting a losing battle, so that later on they can say, "Hey, it's not our fault -- we want to tell you what is happening, they won't let us!"
- selter01 13y ago
  I don't think the outcome of the battle matters at all in this case. Google is still putting up a fight. Their track record shows that they do at least tell us what is happening, so "it's not our fault, we want to tell you, they won't let us" is consistent with their actions, AFAIK.
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    > Google is still putting up a fight. Their track record shows that they do at least tell us what is happening If they wanted to fight, they'd just publish the info instead of asking some court before doing anything. Then again, it's doubtful whether anyone would believe them at this point if they published anything and claimed the information was complete.
    - selter01 13y ago
      Isn't that illegal?
- embolism 13y ago
  Google doesn't tell us what they are doing with our data.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    It's not your data once you've submitted it to a Google-run service. The expense of all the services Google provides without monetary compensation is the data they can collect. You trade that to them when you use the site: that's their fee.
    - embolism 13y ago
      Firstly I was responding to the parent who said that Google tells us what they do with our data. Whether you think of it as ours or theirs, they don't tell us what they do with it. Secondly, if what you say is true, then we should stop complaining about what Google passes it to the government - what business is it of ours what they do with their data? Thirdly, I doubt that anyone seriously believes that the 'fee' for using GMail is that their messages become Google's property.
      - cookiecaper 13y ago
        It doesn't necessarily convert to their property from an intellectual property POV, but it is "Google's data" in the sense that you contractually allowed them to utilize it as described in the ToS and privacy policies, which one is free to reject or accept. You know the old saying, "If you're not paying for a service, you're the product." Why expect anything else? Google is a for-profit company and it's an expensive thing to run. They deserve something for the services provided, don't they?
        embolism 13y ago
        In other words it's nothing at all like a fee, as you described it earlier. But, if things are as you say, Google can do whatever it likes with the data according to the ToS. If people don't like data about them being given to the Government, or used for any other undisclosed purpose, they shouldn't have used Google.
        cookiecaper 13y ago
- jfoster 13y ago
  The cynic in me notes that the companies were spurred into action by the leak. Google has always showed some interest in providing transparency about government requests, but even they were not taking the US government to court over it. The companies involved are taking these actions because the leak may have undermined consumer trust (eg. small drops in activity) in them. Perhaps even wrongly, if PRISM isn't as widespread as the initial leak suggested.
nostromo 13y ago
The government has a monopoly on violence. They can kill you, send you to gitmo, take all of your money and possessions, etc. Google by comparison can turn off your gmail account.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Depending on what precisely they do with the data, they could do things quite a bit more damaging than turning off your Gmail account, though it certainly wouldn't rise to the level of sending you to gitmo. The worst would probably be some kind of financial and/or career blackballing, if they sold data-mined information about you to credit agencies, lenders, private investigators, and/or prospective employers, and something particularly damaging were contained in it. I believe their privacy policy currently says they won't do that, and it's especially clear that they won't do anything except target ads using information mined out of your email. But I don't think there would be anything illegal about it, as long as they didn't do something like outright blackmail (offer to let you pay to expunge negative information or something).
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    The difference is that if Google did that, everyone would immediately stop giving them that information, which is worth more to them than the advantage they could gain in screwing you over once. On the other hand, if the government does this, people can do... what, exactly? Stop giving their information to the government? They didn't willingly do that to begin with. Stop giving it to Google? Maybe, but they would have to stop giving it to anyone, which is a lot more difficult than just switching from one service to another.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well if you're willing to talk about illegal things the government could do to you it makes sense to talk about the illegal things Google could do to you; i.e., anything.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Our government has decided that it is allowed to do all of those things "legally" in certain circumstances. Execution, asset forfeiture, and detainment are all considered "legal". Nothing besides the government is permitted to do these things, they have a monopoly on that right.
alexqgb 13y ago
The difference is that they mine data in order to better target ads. When the Feds ask them to share the same data with them, it's for reasons that are vastly more disconcerting. Intent is everything, and that's twice as true when you're dealing with a lethal organization that shows every sign of having escaped from its legal restraints.

This is sortof hillarious, Google fighting for this when they mine ALL of your data...

by bifrost 13y ago

This is sortof hillarious, Google fighting for this when they mine ALL of your data...

They are not fighting the mining by the government, only the secrecy. They are fighting for the right to tell you what is happening, just like they tell you what they are doing with your data. The cynic in me thinks that Google is deliberately fighting a losing battle, so that later on they can say, "Hey, it's not our fault -- we want to tell you what is happening, they won't let us!"

selter01 13y ago
I don't think the outcome of the battle matters at all in this case. Google is still putting up a fight. Their track record shows that they do at least tell us what is happening, so "it's not our fault, we want to tell you, they won't let us" is consistent with their actions, AFAIK.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  > Google is still putting up a fight. Their track record shows that they do at least tell us what is happening If they wanted to fight, they'd just publish the info instead of asking some court before doing anything. Then again, it's doubtful whether anyone would believe them at this point if they published anything and claimed the information was complete.
  - selter01 13y ago
    Isn't that illegal?
embolism 13y ago
Google doesn't tell us what they are doing with our data.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  It's not your data once you've submitted it to a Google-run service. The expense of all the services Google provides without monetary compensation is the data they can collect. You trade that to them when you use the site: that's their fee.
  - embolism 13y ago
    Firstly I was responding to the parent who said that Google tells us what they do with our data. Whether you think of it as ours or theirs, they don't tell us what they do with it. Secondly, if what you say is true, then we should stop complaining about what Google passes it to the government - what business is it of ours what they do with their data? Thirdly, I doubt that anyone seriously believes that the 'fee' for using GMail is that their messages become Google's property.
    - cookiecaper 13y ago
      It doesn't necessarily convert to their property from an intellectual property POV, but it is "Google's data" in the sense that you contractually allowed them to utilize it as described in the ToS and privacy policies, which one is free to reject or accept. You know the old saying, "If you're not paying for a service, you're the product." Why expect anything else? Google is a for-profit company and it's an expensive thing to run. They deserve something for the services provided, don't they?
      - embolism 13y ago
        In other words it's nothing at all like a fee, as you described it earlier. But, if things are as you say, Google can do whatever it likes with the data according to the ToS. If people don't like data about them being given to the Government, or used for any other undisclosed purpose, they shouldn't have used Google.
        cookiecaper 13y ago
jfoster 13y ago
The cynic in me notes that the companies were spurred into action by the leak. Google has always showed some interest in providing transparency about government requests, but even they were not taking the US government to court over it. The companies involved are taking these actions because the leak may have undermined consumer trust (eg. small drops in activity) in them. Perhaps even wrongly, if PRISM isn't as widespread as the initial leak suggested.

nostromo 13y ago

The government has a monopoly on violence. They can kill you, send you to gitmo, take all of your money and possessions, etc. Google by comparison can turn off your gmail account.

_delirium 13y ago
Depending on what precisely they do with the data, they could do things quite a bit more damaging than turning off your Gmail account, though it certainly wouldn't rise to the level of sending you to gitmo. The worst would probably be some kind of financial and/or career blackballing, if they sold data-mined information about you to credit agencies, lenders, private investigators, and/or prospective employers, and something particularly damaging were contained in it. I believe their privacy policy currently says they won't do that, and it's especially clear that they won't do anything except target ads using information mined out of your email. But I don't think there would be anything illegal about it, as long as they didn't do something like outright blackmail (offer to let you pay to expunge negative information or something).
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  The difference is that if Google did that, everyone would immediately stop giving them that information, which is worth more to them than the advantage they could gain in screwing you over once. On the other hand, if the government does this, people can do... what, exactly? Stop giving their information to the government? They didn't willingly do that to begin with. Stop giving it to Google? Maybe, but they would have to stop giving it to anyone, which is a lot more difficult than just switching from one service to another.
mpyne 13y ago
Well if you're willing to talk about illegal things the government could do to you it makes sense to talk about the illegal things Google could do to you; i.e., anything.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Our government has decided that it is allowed to do all of those things "legally" in certain circumstances. Execution, asset forfeiture, and detainment are all considered "legal". Nothing besides the government is permitted to do these things, they have a monopoly on that right.

alexqgb 13y ago

The difference is that they mine data in order to better target ads. When the Feds ask them to share the same data with them, it's for reasons that are vastly more disconcerting. Intent is everything, and that's twice as true when you're dealing with a lethal organization that shows every sign of having escaped from its legal restraints.