1. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    There will come a day when we all will care about data mining our personal info, by then, it will be too late.
    We are all already concerned about data mining. It's a rare person that would not care about it. However, there's a benefit as well as a detriment.

    Most (I hesitate everybody because I haven't actually audited everybody) of the people in my family, despite using Google products extensively, are actually very difficult to glean information on based on online data mining. I make it a point to search for myself on Google every month or so. I'm a very active Google products user, and to be quite honest... I'm sometimes a bit disheartened at how little (if any) information I can discover about myself. Mainly because there are people in my past that I would love to be able to track me down. But they are people that are obviously as well adjusted as myself, and while I can't track them down, they can't track me down for the same reasons.

    Sure, datamining is something to be aware of. But it's not like anybody exercising the least bit of caution can't mitigate. Don't share anything while chemically impaired. Don't share anything publicly online that you wouldn't normally share in a public square in front of actual people. You should be all right. The schmuck that posts a selfie publicly of their own Junk, is not representing the general public.
    pantlesspenguin likes this.
    01-09-14 05:53 PM
  2. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Google is a despicable company that has no respect for privacy, intellectual property laws or fair trade practices. It's high time that people gave Google the big finger and removed all their data mining/siphoning tools from daily use. This means using a different search engine, boycotting their services, removing their cloud spyware apps and refusing to buy anything associated with the company - including the Google Play Store (More like "Prey" Store). If one is too stupid not to realise that their Android equipped phone/tablet is nothing more than a data siphoning trojan that is raping their freedom then they are too far gone.
    You're drinking the propganda kool-aid.

    Point to one example where Google has actually violated anybody's privacy? Sure there have been instances where they've been found to have inadvertently gathered information that would be private... but show where they gave that information out instead of sequestering or destroying it? Google has demonstrated time and again that your private information remains private. Name one instance where they made your private information public.
    techvisor and pantlesspenguin like this.
    01-09-14 05:59 PM
  3. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    I'm still curious as to why some people still make the claim that Google sells your information. They don't. What Google sells is the ability to deliver an ad to a seller's demographic. Huge difference.

    If I make a Google search for, let's say... "Goodrich Tires"... Google doesn't tell Goodrich that I'm interested in buying their tires. Google simply sends me an ad recommending a good deal on BF Goodrich All Terrain Radial TA's at a local dealer. Because Google knows that I'm currently in Colorado, knows that since I searched for tires, assesses the best deal based in consumer reports that they may be the best option for me. I'd be happy to see that.

    What Google does NOT do, is contact BF Goodrich, tell them that I'm interested in buying tires, and how to contact me.

    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    You said this beautifully. I though this was understood. This is the reason why Google in the Tech Press is loved. You won't find actual Tech Journalist saying hate on Google. They do however say things all the time about Facebook. Google gets love because they provide innovative products just like Apple. In fact their mentioned in the same breath most of the time. If Google was taking everything they know about everyone and selling it, then tech press would be outraged. Instead they keep the info they collect under lock and key and tell advertisers that buying ads from us (Google) is more beneficial then buy them from Microsoft because our ads have a better hit rate for being what our customers are looking to buy. I have both Gmail and Microsoft Hotmail and both have ads. Gmails ads are more often then not something i'm interested in. Microsoft Hotmail ads are all over the place. Nothing I ever felt like clicking on. Also Gmail filters SPAM better than anyone. Google's product is clearly better (email i'm comparing). All Google's products take all the info I give them from my gmail calendar to my Google maps and helps them deliver a better product to me. Are they going to take that data and try to make money off of it? Sure. They would find places where they can monetize services to companies that Google thinks can help them make money but at the same time provide a service. We are culture that buys tons of stuff. That could be clothing all the way to tv shows and music. If Google can make those purchases easy and possiblely cheaper they make money which they can use to make driving cars or robots or anything else. There is so much miss information on this.
    Last edited by Nicholas Kathrein; 01-09-14 at 06:39 PM.
    techvisor likes this.
    01-09-14 06:02 PM
  4. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    Respect for privacy? Their entire business model is selling data. Nobody is forced to use Google products. Therefore I don't see how it can be labeled as evil.
    And don't forget that they don't sell your data. They provide a service to marketers to help them deliver target ads and to be honest some of them I have used because they are good deals. What if you told you friend that your looking for specific pair of jeans and if he/she finds a good deal to let you know? When your friend comes back and tells you that they saw that "TJ Max" or some other store has them at a better price than you have found your thankful for this info. Google can do this. They know you Googled "Levis 501 Jeans." If they worked a deal with some of the big clothing chains they can pop up a message in Google Now (Sweet App) saying that TJ Max is on the way home and using this barcode you can get it for "$30" and show you that a price search for the top stores cost more. If you want them you'd find this helpful and who wants to wait when they can get it now. See Google doesn't have to be evil to make money. They just have to make great products the help people and as long as they show customers they are doing everything to keep their info locked in the Google cloud people will come and Tech Journalist will continue to sing their praises.
    techvisor and pantlesspenguin like this.
    01-09-14 06:21 PM
  5. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    Point to one example where Google has actually violated anybody's privacy?
    Larry Page's Second Big Mistake As CEO: Opening Your Gmail Box to Google+ Followers - Forbes
    01-09-14 06:49 PM
  6. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    That's not a violation of privacy. A person can only send you email via gmail if you have them circled (which is a required permission on your part), as well you have to specify that those that you have circled can send you emails. Unless you specifically configure your G+ settings to allow anybody to message you via gmail, it acts just like anybody else who tries to message you via any other social medium. Just like Facebook and other social networks, anybody can send you a message. They don't have access to your private data. You can choose to ignore/block/etc.. just like any other service.
    01-09-14 07:28 PM
  7. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    That's not a violation of privacy. A person can only send you email via gmail if you have them circled (which is a required permission on your part), as well you have to specify that those that you have circled can send you emails. Unless you specifically configure your G+ settings to allow anybody to message you via gmail, it acts just like anybody else who tries to message you via any other social medium. Just like Facebook and other social networks, anybody can send you a message. They don't have access to your private data. You can choose to ignore/block/etc.. just like any other service.
    You beat me to this answer.
    01-09-14 07:39 PM
  8. Dave Bourque's Avatar
    Honest question: Are you implying that everyone that uses Google's ecosystem is a gullible end user?
    Yes including me.

    Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.1925
    MERCDROID likes this.
    01-09-14 07:56 PM
  9. Dave Bourque's Avatar
    That's not a violation of privacy. A person can only send you email via gmail if you have them circled (which is a required permission on your part), as well you have to specify that those that you have circled can send you emails. Unless you specifically configure your G+ settings to allow anybody to message you via gmail, it acts just like anybody else who tries to message you via any other social medium. Just like Facebook and other social networks, anybody can send you a message. They don't have access to your private data. You can choose to ignore/block/etc.. just like any other service.
    I think the issue is that they shouldn't be adding features that can cause huge problems. Even if there is a setting to switch off or on.

    Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.1925
    01-09-14 07:57 PM
  10. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    I think the issue is that they shouldn't be adding features that can cause huge problems. Even if there is a setting to switch off or on.

    Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.1925
    I don't see why not. Innovation means pushing boundaries. Peoples norms are constantly changing. Why wouldn't I not want someone to email who are in my circles? I post things on G+ expecting interaction. Since when did we say "lets not give new features because some people can't figure out how to change their privacy settings?"
    techvisor likes this.
    01-09-14 08:30 PM
  11. Dave Bourque's Avatar
    I don't see why not. Innovation means pushing boundaries. Peoples norms are constantly changing. Why wouldn't I not want someone to email who are in my circles? I post things on G+ expecting interaction. Since when did we say "lets not give new features because some people can't figure out how to change their privacy settings?"
    The privacy settings should be on default .... that is the point lol.... people are more likely to want privacy by default.

    Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.1925
    01-09-14 08:48 PM
  12. raino's Avatar
    Oh noes, they might find out my high score in Candy Crush or see a picture of my cat on Instagram lol,
    I didn't know Google made money off of your Candy Crush scores and Instagram pictures. How cute.


    If I make a Google search for, let's say... "Goodrich Tires"... Google doesn't tell Goodrich that I'm interested in buying their tires. Google simply sends me an ad recommending a good deal on BF Goodrich All Terrain Radial TA's at a local dealer. Because Google knows that I'm currently in Colorado, knows that since I searched for tires, assesses the best deal based in consumer reports that they may be the best option for me. I'd be happy to see that.

    What Google does NOT do, is contact BF Goodrich, tell them that I'm interested in buying tires, and how to contact me.
    So BF Goodrich mining your information and serving up ads is not ok, but Google doing it is, is that what you're saying? If so, to what does Google owe this honor?
    01-09-14 09:47 PM
  13. Acidwire's Avatar
    Yah, that could be said about anything. "People are worried about companies building robots, but later when they rise up a kill us and you will be sorry." The mining of data is what "most" of us want. Fitness trackers and wifi scales and all these sensors so our homes know when we're home. This "data mining", it seems people want to know more about themselves. Many people want that.
    funny you should mention that... Rise of the Google machines: The robotics companies involved lol
    01-10-14 05:35 AM
  14. Acidwire's Avatar
    So BF Goodrich mining your information and serving up ads is not ok, but Google doing it is, is that what you're saying? If so, to what does Google owe this honor?
    thats not what hes saying, hes saying Google doesnt give any infomation from your searches to outside companies so they can contact you, add you to their mailing lists or use your data in any way. they just look up deals close to you based on what you searched for and suggest them incase you fancy popping into your local branch and looking around instead of giving you a generic advert thats not even relevant in any way and would be like annoying spam
    pantlesspenguin likes this.
    01-10-14 05:42 AM
  15. SubCamp's Avatar
    I don't understand how one could say Google is in hot water over a $204,000 fine when Google has a market cap of $375B.. if consumers really cared about privacy BlackBerry would be much more relevant in the mobile industry and Facebook wouldn't be the most widely used social networking site, Facebook mined private messages to advertisers, lawsuit claims - Telegraph
    01-10-14 09:38 AM
  16. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    So BF Goodrich mining your information and serving up ads is not ok, but Google doing it is, is that what you're saying? If so, to what does Google owe this honor?
    In effect. Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I've granted Google that honor in exchange for the valuable services they provide to me daily. Additionally, I can walk away at any time as well as monitor and control which data I'm giving them.
    01-10-14 10:06 AM
  17. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    I think the issue is that they shouldn't be adding features that can cause huge problems. Even if there is a setting to switch off or on.

    Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.1925
    I don't really see any new feature being added that can cause huge problems. I think it's more that some people are seeing the devil where he doesn't exist (cuz that sells headlines), before actually waiting for the new feature to be released and seeing how benign it really is.

    All the new feature really does, is give a G+ user the ability to allow their G+ contacts to send them emails without actually giving away their email address. This has actually been a highly requested feature among G+ users, and the reason is very simple. G+ users tend to have thousands of G+ contacts in their circles, and occasionally will wish to correspond by email. Unfortunately, there may come a time when you (as a G+ user) may wish to remove a contact from your circles (for whatever reason), but if they already have your email address due to previous email correspondence, you can never truly block them entirely. It's the same concept of preferring to use a PIN instead of telephone numbers with an instant messaging client.

    The privacy settings should be on default .... that is the point lol.... people are more likely to want privacy by default.
    It is on by default. Well kinda... It's set to "Your Circles" by default. Which is much much better than "Everybody", but not as locked down as "Nobody". IMHO, a modest compromise.
    01-10-14 10:24 AM
  18. m1kr0's Avatar
    Just to give another angle, here is a story carried by CNet earlier: http://m.cnet.com/news/google-privac...-dead/57616973

    Google privacy chief: Proposed EU privacy law 'dead'
    by Seth Rosenblatt
    January 9, 2014
    "....Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer wrote on his personal blog, "Europe's much-ballyhooed, and much-flawed, proposal to rewrite its privacy laws for the next twenty years [has] collapsed."

    The bill would give regulators the power to fine companies in violation of the law up to 100 million euros, around $136 million, for failing to properly secure the personal data of EU citizens. In October, the EU agreed with a British request to delay a 2014 deadline for the law. EU representatives did not agree with Fleischer's more pessimistic take on the bill.

    German Green Party politician Jan Philipp Albrecht, a proponent of the law who has been guiding it through the European Parliament and blamed Google for spending "hundreds of millions of dollars" lobbying against it, told Blooomberg that the blog post was "another try of Fleischer to kill the data-protection regulation by calling it dead."

    STL 100-1 OS 10.2.1.1925
    01-10-14 10:41 AM
  19. raino's Avatar
    In effect. Yep. That's exactly what I'm saying. I've granted Google that honor in exchange for the valuable services they provide to me daily. Additionally, I can walk away at any time as well as monitor and control which data I'm giving them.
    So you're ok giving out your information in exchange for products/services that may or may not exist tomorrow depending on how much money they're making Google (in terms of ad revenue they're generating?) Why not directly share instead with companies you know that have a direct vested interest in the product they're advertising to you (BF Goodrich, whose core business is the tires you're looking to buy?)
    01-10-14 12:24 PM
  20. nobies's Avatar
    That $204,000 fine is surely going to hurt their pocketbook
    I highly doubt that it will hurt their pocket book, have you seen what they make a year :P
    01-10-14 12:34 PM
  21. Karan Mohal's Avatar
    I have been seeing this more and more and it makes me want to switch away from Google. I don't use their phones but I use their email. Where can one switch to that is more concerned with our privacy and not selling our data? Microsoft? Yahoo? Host your own?
    Google "lavabits" .. interesting story there..
    01-10-14 12:43 PM
  22. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    So you're ok giving out your information in exchange for products/services that may or may not exist tomorrow depending on how much money they're making Google (in terms of ad revenue they're generating?) Why not directly share instead with companies you know that have a direct vested interest in the product they're advertising to you (BF Goodrich, whose core business is the tires you're looking to buy?)
    Because when you share information directly to the seller of a product, those sellers continue to bug the bejeezus out of you until the end of time with all their over aggressive marketing. Expanding upon the BF Goodrich example... If I'm shopping for tires, and I share my information directly to tire sellers, even after I have finalized the purchase of the product I was shopping for, I will still get bombarded by them for additional future sales, the retailers of which I chose not to purchase from will continue to bombard me, and will subsequently be bugged to fill out surveys asking why I chose to/to-not purchase my product from a specific retailer.... blah blah blah... it goes on and on. And we're just talking about one single purchase here. Compound that with every single purchasing decision you make, and now you've got every single retailer having your information and constantly trying to make a sale.

    On the other hand... If I allow Google to handle the information of my choosing, I receive the ads that I wish to see when I need to see them. My information is shared with one entity, that keeps my information private based on my preferences, and I know right where to go should that information ever be violated. That's much preferable to sharing information repeatedly with multiple entities who's only motivation is to sell me something.
    MERCDROID likes this.
    01-10-14 12:47 PM
  23. raino's Avatar
    On the other hand... If I allow Google to handle the information of my choosing, I receive the ads that I wish to see when I need to see them. My information is shared with one entity, that keeps my information private based on my preferences, and I know right where to go should that information ever be violated. That's much preferable to sharing information repeatedly with multiple entities who's only motivation is to sell me something.
    1. How do you know that Google is showing you the best options for you, and not necessarily who's paying them the most? Hypothetical example: BF Goodrich tires are really crappy, you should really be buying Michelin, but BF Goodrich's ads get shown and search results get preference because they're paying Google and Michelin is not?

    2. How would you react if, say, Google Maps (used on your phone) was a major Google service you used in this tire purchase, and the next time you're shopping for a spare, you find out Google shut down Google Maps for Android because the eyes on iOS>>eyes on Android?
    MERCDROID likes this.
    01-10-14 01:23 PM
  24. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    raino,

    I know exactly how Google services work. I know in pretty great detail how my data is used. I'm aware that Google has shut down many of it's (free!) services due to declining usage (in most cases), including a couple that I liked. I still CHOOSE to use Google because, on balance, Google's products are an OVERWHELMING positive for me. Even the targeted ads are a positive (and those ads have never stopped me from researching a purchase, and being able to choose to use a competitor over the company in the ad), because they are for items I do actually care about.

    You are free to disagree and feel differently about sharing your information. That's your right and privilege. You can avoid Google products completely if you like; it makes zero difference to me. But huge numbers of people agree with me, even if they don't have the whole picture like I do: Google's excellent services are a big net positive in their lives.

    We all know Google wants our data, because it wants to be able to target our ads better than anyone else on the planet: that's how they make money, and they make a LOT of money. I'm fine with that trade-off, and so are a lot of people. I'm not stupid, or naive, about how data COULD be misused, but Google has a stellar record in that area, and are extremely aware that if they break that trust in any significant way, their ability to continue making the kind of money they are making is in huge jeopardy, so they have financial motivation to behave as well.
    01-10-14 03:20 PM
  25. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    1. How do you know that Google is showing you the best options for you, and not necessarily who's paying them the most? Hypothetical example: BF Goodrich tires are really crappy, you should really be buying Michelin, but BF Goodrich's ads get shown and search results get preference because they're paying Google and Michelin is not?
    Google doesn't make purchasing decisions on your behalf. That decision is still ultimately the buyer's decision to make. As a user, after having read reviews on different brands of tires, Google will deliver ads tailored to my needs. If for some odd reason Michelin didn't pay for ads, but Goodrich did... That's not a Google limitation, but more so a Michelin Marketing Department limitation. Besides which, it would more likely come down to local retailers advertising. Michelin and Goodrich aren't retailers, they're manufacturers. The ads that would pop would be from the likes of Discount Tire/Pep Boys/Big-O etc... And if any of them don't advertise through Google, well then that's just on them. Consumers choose what they're going to buy, ads merely influence when and where.

    2. How would you react if, say, Google Maps (used on your phone) was a major Google service you used in this tire purchase, and the next time you're shopping for a spare, you find out Google shut down Google Maps for Android because the eyes on iOS>>eyes on Android?
    Yeah... That's something I'm willing to risk.


    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    01-10-14 03:27 PM
121 12345

Similar Threads

  1. What Does Expire Day in Remote Log Collection Mean?
    By tanphat1412 in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-03-15, 03:44 AM
  2. Help on Gmail in Hub
    By bpgc in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-01-14, 10:07 AM
  3. Good times is back again
    By avnishsp in forum Armchair CEO
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-07-14, 11:55 PM
  4. In the drivers seat with QNX at CES 2014
    By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-07-14, 11:02 PM
  5. Don't see abc app in app world
    By redk in forum BlackBerry 10 Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-07-14, 02:50 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD