5 ms·

Why are you posting this shit on HN? Everyone here knows how contextual advertising in gmail works, and excepting those too young to have been aware back then,

Why are you posting this shit on HN? Everyone here knows how contextual advertising in gmail works, and excepting those too young to have been aware back then, have known about it since 2004. If you have a point, make it, but scare quotes specifically made to induce an emotional reaction from those without technical knowledge really have no place here.

obituary_latte 13y ago
If nothing else, it reminds people that it's going on. Which is a good thing. Myself, with adblockXYZ installed, often forget or don't notice. And when these do come up, I'm grateful because it reminds me to stop being a lazy bastard and set up an email server (as I've done many times for others) for myself. I appreciate that.
- magicalist 13y ago
  I guess. There are plenty of other people in this thread who have brought up the fact that if your email service can read your email you are inherently vulnerable without quoting the plaintiff's attorney in a suit about the practice talking to ABC news. Talk about your lowest common denominator. I didn't come here to be propogandized at, so, yes, I will object to the dumbing down of debate to appeals to emotion (especially on a subject that's obviously already so emotionally charged).
  - obituary_latte 13y ago
    Ok. Maybe you came to the wrong place then. Or maybe your perspective is off... Who could know such things?
  - 001sky 13y ago
    magicalist: It was a widely reported national headline because it came from AP. It was not a story by some perma-tanned fake news-anchor. Alternative sources, same headline. This is also very much a PR war, on both side (google, NSA, etc). In case you haven't also icked that up. Everyone is in the business of manufacturing headlines. http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/google_argues_for_right_to_con.html http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/google_argues... http://news.yahoo.com/google-argues-continue-scanning-gmail-083912032.html http://news.yahoo.com/google-argues-continue-scanning-gmail-... http://www.nbcnews.com/business/google-argues-right-continue-scanning-gmail-8C11080325 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/google-argues-right-continue... http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24021944/google-argues-right-continue-scanning-gmail http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24021944/google-argue...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
001sky 13y ago
Here's your footnote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
- magicalist 13y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. If you don't want your email accessed, don't send it unencrypted from your client, and definitely don't send it via a service that has features (search, spam, google now, etc) and is payed for by a system (contextual advertising) that explicitly accesses the contents of your email. Download Thunderbird and a PGP client[1]. Boom, done. Use another email service. Boom, done. I'm not objecting to the idea that you'd find it objectionable to have your email contents used for advertising. I'm objecting to a useless quote that tries to turn this into a soundbite-off instead of an actual discussion (little hope as this thread has). [1] https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/digitally-signing-and-encrypting-messages https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/digitally-sign...
  - 001sky 13y ago
    Diluting the expectation of privacy about e-mail in general has implications under constitutional law. The 4th amendment only protects against unreasonable searches by the governmnet. The use of mail connotes private communication. As in contrast to post (which is presumed public). Implied consent to forfeighting the right to stop 3rd parties reading your e-mail is not something the public has an interest in establishing. Regardless of the purpose of such 3 party incursion. I don't want to get into a side-bar explanation or legal debate TBH, but its not mindless fear mongering.[1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/us/politics/legislation-seeks-to-bar-nsa-tactic-in-encryption.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/us/politics/legislation-se... “This has been the stuff of wild-eyed accusations for years. A lot of people are heartbroken to find out it’s not just wild-eyed accusations.”
    - magicalist 13y ago
      No, this is not correct. The particulars of your agreement with a third-party for storage of your email does not extend government rights to examine that data (the ads in your inbox are as non-public as the email in there too). Even the horribly flawed ECPA recognizes that (it buttresses it, in fact). Moreover, Google[1] is currently standing behind the US v Warshak shield and requiring warrants for email contents. The problems with the third-party doctrine are much more fundamental than the ways in which that third-party is storing and displaying your data, activities that continue for any webmail client even in the absence of ads when doing spam filtering, searching, etc. Merely the fact that a third-party is involved at all is enough for the outdated sections of the ECPA to rear their ugly heads. Here's hoping the Supreme Court takes up a case like US v Warshak soon. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/google-stands-up-for-gmail-users-requires-cops-to-get-a-warrant/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/google-stands-up-...

obituary_latte 13y ago

If nothing else, it reminds people that it's going on. Which is a good thing. Myself, with adblockXYZ installed, often forget or don't notice. And when these do come up, I'm grateful because it reminds me to stop being a lazy bastard and set up an email server (as I've done many times for others) for myself. I appreciate that.

magicalist 13y ago
I guess. There are plenty of other people in this thread who have brought up the fact that if your email service can read your email you are inherently vulnerable without quoting the plaintiff's attorney in a suit about the practice talking to ABC news. Talk about your lowest common denominator. I didn't come here to be propogandized at, so, yes, I will object to the dumbing down of debate to appeals to emotion (especially on a subject that's obviously already so emotionally charged).
- obituary_latte 13y ago
  Ok. Maybe you came to the wrong place then. Or maybe your perspective is off... Who could know such things?
- 001sky 13y ago
  magicalist: It was a widely reported national headline because it came from AP. It was not a story by some perma-tanned fake news-anchor. Alternative sources, same headline. This is also very much a PR war, on both side (google, NSA, etc). In case you haven't also icked that up. Everyone is in the business of manufacturing headlines. http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/google_argues_for_right_to_con.html http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/google_argues... http://news.yahoo.com/google-argues-continue-scanning-gmail-083912032.html http://news.yahoo.com/google-argues-continue-scanning-gmail-... http://www.nbcnews.com/business/google-argues-right-continue-scanning-gmail-8C11080325 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/google-argues-right-continue... http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24021944/google-argues-right-continue-scanning-gmail http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24021944/google-argue...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

001sky 13y ago

Here's your footnote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

magicalist 13y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. If you don't want your email accessed, don't send it unencrypted from your client, and definitely don't send it via a service that has features (search, spam, google now, etc) and is payed for by a system (contextual advertising) that explicitly accesses the contents of your email. Download Thunderbird and a PGP client[1]. Boom, done. Use another email service. Boom, done. I'm not objecting to the idea that you'd find it objectionable to have your email contents used for advertising. I'm objecting to a useless quote that tries to turn this into a soundbite-off instead of an actual discussion (little hope as this thread has). [1] https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/digitally-signing-and-encrypting-messages https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/digitally-sign...
- 001sky 13y ago
  Diluting the expectation of privacy about e-mail in general has implications under constitutional law. The 4th amendment only protects against unreasonable searches by the governmnet. The use of mail connotes private communication. As in contrast to post (which is presumed public). Implied consent to forfeighting the right to stop 3rd parties reading your e-mail is not something the public has an interest in establishing. Regardless of the purpose of such 3 party incursion. I don't want to get into a side-bar explanation or legal debate TBH, but its not mindless fear mongering.[1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/us/politics/legislation-seeks-to-bar-nsa-tactic-in-encryption.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/us/politics/legislation-se... “This has been the stuff of wild-eyed accusations for years. A lot of people are heartbroken to find out it’s not just wild-eyed accusations.”
  - magicalist 13y ago
    No, this is not correct. The particulars of your agreement with a third-party for storage of your email does not extend government rights to examine that data (the ads in your inbox are as non-public as the email in there too). Even the horribly flawed ECPA recognizes that (it buttresses it, in fact). Moreover, Google[1] is currently standing behind the US v Warshak shield and requiring warrants for email contents. The problems with the third-party doctrine are much more fundamental than the ways in which that third-party is storing and displaying your data, activities that continue for any webmail client even in the absence of ads when doing spam filtering, searching, etc. Merely the fact that a third-party is involved at all is enough for the outdated sections of the ECPA to rear their ugly heads. Here's hoping the Supreme Court takes up a case like US v Warshak soon. [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/google-stands-up-for-gmail-users-requires-cops-to-get-a-warrant/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/google-stands-up-...