01-23-14 04:04 AM
121 ... 2345
tools
  1. TheScionicMan'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 feel it is a violation of my privacy. I did not ask for Google to allow these people to reach my email inbox, regardless of the secondary actions that may or may not happen. What's next? One free call to your phone? SMS? Why not give out my BBM PIN too. Why bother keeping Circles separate? I'm sure Google would prefer to have all of your contacts speaking with each other, so let's just add them all to one circle? I'm sure you would prefer Google to make these decisions for you since they obviously have your best interests in mind, but I like to keep my stuff separated as I see fit.

    How hard would it be to share my email with a G+ follower IF I wanted to do so? This is a solution looking for a problem that didn't exist.
    raino likes this.
    01-10-14 05:06 PM
  2. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    I feel it is a violation of my privacy. I did not ask for Google to allow these people to reach my email inbox, regardless of the secondary actions that may or may not happen. What's next? One free call to your phone? SMS? Why not give out my BBM PIN too. Why bother keeping Circles separate? I'm sure Google would prefer to have all of your contacts speaking with each other, so let's just add them all to one circle? I'm sure you would prefer Google to make these decisions for you since they obviously have your best interests in mind, but I like to keep my stuff separated as I see fit.

    How hard would it be to share my email with a G+ follower IF I wanted to do so? This is a solution looking for a problem that didn't exist.
    And yet you can block that from happening. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

    With this new feature, the only people that can send you a message via gmail are those "you have already declared to be friends or contacts". And even then, that's "without" them actually having any of your personal information, with the added benefit of blocking them all together.

    Your email address hasn't been leaked. Those that can message you through this new medium have already been given permission "by you" to message then. Now you have the added benefit of determining "how" they can contact you.

    There's no downside. There's no invasion of privacy. None of your contacts in G+ suddenly got their hands on your email address. All those same users could have messaged you at any time as it stands now, just by virtue of the fact you circled them.

    For all intents and purposes, the only thing that has changed is that YOU can determine where the messages are delivered.

    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Nicholas Kathrein likes this.
    01-10-14 05:20 PM
  3. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    And yet you can block that from happening.
    I had it blocked from happening. Now I have to go in and override Google's determination that their way is better.

    Opt in would be the privacy-driven way to handle it. The harder they push G+ down my throat, the less interested in it I get.
    raino and MERCDROID like this.
    01-10-14 05:55 PM
  4. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    I had it blocked from happening. Now I have to go in and override Google's determination that their way is better.

    Opt in would be the privacy-driven way to handle it. The harder they push G+ down my throat, the less interested in it I get.
    It's not like just anybody could message you through email without your address. Only those that you had added to your circles. A few mouse clicks to block it entirely to everybody, and voila... Whoopdy do.

    There was no privacy violation. At worst, you received an email from somebody you didn't expect or want before turning it off. That's hardly a privacy violation. Nobody received private information about you.

    So you may have received an email from somebody you had already confirmed to be somebody you're willing to talk to. Oh the horror...

    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Nicholas Kathrein likes this.
    01-10-14 06:14 PM
  5. raino's Avatar
    So you may have received an email from somebody you had already confirmed to be somebody you're willing to talk to. Oh the horror...
    During your BB ownership days, you must have been ok with giving out your phone number to everyone who had your PIN, am I right?
    MERCDROID likes this.
    01-10-14 06:55 PM
  6. bennelong's Avatar
    Oh noes, they might find out my high score in Candy Crush or see a picture of my cat on Instagram lol, obviously millions of people a day don't care and are flocking to Android.
    Your skimmed and publicly accessible information will most likely end up being used for -something like this.
    You won't know what you've got till it's gone I'm afraid.

    Posted via CB10
    01-11-14 12:57 AM
  7. qwerty4ever's Avatar
    Oh how I miss the Alta Vista seach engine era when a search engine provider returned matching URIS and didn't mine data.

    Posted via the BlackBerry Q5 using CB10.
    m1kr0 likes this.
    01-11-14 01:34 AM
  8. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    I didn't know Google made money off of your Candy Crush scores and Instagram pictures. How cute.



    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?
    Is BF Goodrich going to display them on the tires you bought from them? What data would they be mining? You seem confused. By Google not giving the data to the companies it means that all Google does is take the ads that are bought and get them to people who might give a crap about them. Microsoft just takes the ad money and vomits them out randomly to your email. Hmm. I wonder which is worse? If I get ads either way I'd rather get ones that might be something I'm interested in. You get free email service that is paid by ads. You make the same deal with Microsoft for Hotmail. There ads are just random.
    01-11-14 08:50 AM
  9. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    During your BB ownership days, you must have been ok with giving out your phone number to everyone who had your PIN, am I right?
    No, I wouldn't have been. But that's the kicker. Google isn't giving out the G+ user's email address. All they have done is add the ability to extend the messaging platform to accommodate messaging in email format. The sender never ever sees the recipient's email address.
    01-11-14 09:34 AM
  10. Vorkosigan's Avatar
    It's not like just anybody could message you through email without your address. Only those that you had added to your circles. A few mouse clicks to block it entirely to everybody, and voila... Whoopdy do.

    There was no privacy violation. At worst, you received an email from somebody you didn't expect or want before turning it off. That's hardly a privacy violation. Nobody received private information about you.

    So you may have received an email from somebody you had already confirmed to be somebody you're willing to talk to. Oh the horror...

    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    The problem is that for the average user they have no idea that this has been turned on and they don't know to go I to settings and turn it off. That's why Google turning it on by default is a privacy violation. It is,granted, one that you agree to when you sign up for a Google account - that they can change their services whenever they want - but how many 'average' users actually read that or comprehend what it means?

    Also - now you are automatically signed up for Google plus - whether you want it or not. Every time a user goes in they are 'encouraged' to add suggested people to their circles. They aren't told that those people will be able to email them.

    Personally - I go into settings frequently to see what Google has been playing with. But I know I'm not an average user. My hairdresser just complained that she got an S3 and her daughter set it up for her, and suddenly she's getting messages or something from a friend of her husband. Likely what she is getting is a suggestion to add this guy she barely knows to her circles. She has no idea how to turn off the more invasive aspects of Google's services. She is far more representative of the average user.

    Posted via CB10
    TheScionicMan likes this.
    01-11-14 09:56 AM
  11. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    The problem is that for the average user they have no idea that this has been turned on and they don't know to go I to settings and turn it off.
    Which is why each user receives an email explaining the change, gives instructions, and provides a link to the setting. They're not just slipping it in without notice.
    Nicholas Kathrein likes this.
    01-11-14 09:59 AM
  12. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    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.



    Yeah... That's something I'm willing to risk.


    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    And yet you can block that from happening. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

    With this new feature, the only people that can send you a message via gmail are those "you have already declared to be friends or contacts". And even then, that's "without" them actually having any of your personal information, with the added benefit of blocking them all together.

    Your email address hasn't been leaked. Those that can message you through this new medium have already been given permission "by you" to message then. Now you have the added benefit of determining "how" they can contact you.

    There's no downside. There's no invasion of privacy. None of your contacts in G+ suddenly got their hands on your email address. All those same users could have messaged you at any time as it stands now, just by virtue of the fact you circled them.

    For all intents and purposes, the only thing that has changed is that YOU can determine where the messages are delivered.

    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    It's not like just anybody could message you through email without your address. Only those that you had added to your circles. A few mouse clicks to block it entirely to everybody, and voila... Whoopdy do.

    There was no privacy violation. At worst, you received an email from somebody you didn't expect or want before turning it off. That's hardly a privacy violation. Nobody received private information about you.

    So you may have received an email from somebody you had already confirmed to be somebody you're willing to talk to. Oh the horror...

    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Which is why each user receives an email explaining the change, gives instructions, and provides a link to the setting. They're not just slipping it in without notice.
    Boom! DenverRalphy drops the mic and walks away.
    01-11-14 10:49 AM
  13. raino's Avatar
    Is BF Goodrich going to display them on the tires you bought from them? What data would they be mining? You seem confused. By Google not giving the data to the companies it means that all Google does is take the ads that are bought and get them to people who might give a crap about them. Microsoft just takes the ad money and vomits them out randomly to your email. Hmm. I wonder which is worse? If I get ads either way I'd rather get ones that might be something I'm interested in. You get free email service that is paid by ads. You make the same deal with Microsoft for Hotmail. There ads are just random.
    They wouldn't be mining. I was just comparing Google doing it to the alternative: they company who's ad they serve up doing it themselves.

    I'd rather not have any ads at all, but in the absence of that, I prefer Hotmail's random ads. They serve as a reminder that not everything I'm doing through that account is being spied upon for commercial purposes.

    It's laughable how you're trying to justify what Google does by comparing it to Hotmail's ad generation. It's not the same.

    No, I wouldn't have been. But that's the kicker. Google isn't giving out the G+ user's email address. All they have done is add the ability to extend the messaging platform to accommodate messaging in email format. The sender never ever sees the recipient's email address.
    It's more like they've done it for you. Adding the ability would have been an opt-in system. But as we know, that's not Google's MO.
    01-11-14 11:01 AM
  14. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    They wouldn't be mining. I was just comparing Google doing it to the alternative: they company who's ad they serve up doing it themselves.

    I'd rather not have any ads at all, but in the absence of that, I prefer Hotmail's random ads. They serve as a reminder that not everything I'm doing through that account is being spied upon for commercial purposes.

    It's laughable how you're trying to justify what Google does by comparing it to Hotmail's ad generation. It's not the same.



    It's more like they've done it for you. Adding the ability would have been an opt-in system. But as we know, that's not Google's MO.
    1. So you rather have dumb ads meaning they are random because you don't want reminders that technology is advancing and can scan words in emails and help determine which of the available ads that was purchased might best apply to you. Do you live by a beach so you can put your head in it. If you believe putting you email in a less technical advanced system that randomly puts ads up then that's your choice. I rather have a better email service. Google filters Spam better and I have both services. I also don't mind Google making more money because they smartly send me ads that their bot has determined might interest. Google makes more money and my services with Google gets better.

    The filtering of spam uses bots that have to read your email.

    Opt in policies.. Any company offering a free service will always opt you in to any feature as a default that either furthers their platform in some way or makes them money. It would be different if you had to pay for the service but if it's free. Companies have to make money on their products or drive more people to them to make them more valuable. These companies can't have all their products free.
    Last edited by Nicholas Kathrein; 01-11-14 at 11:47 AM.
    01-11-14 11:35 AM
  15. Vorkosigan's Avatar
    Which is why each user receives an email explaining the change, gives instructions, and provides a link to the setting. They're not just slipping it in without notice.
    Yes. And every user is of course at fault if they don't read those emails, which Google knows they won't.

    They could have used an opt in system, which to my mind would be more in keeping with their so called 'don't be evil' business ethic. However, as someone pointed out, they have no obligation to do this, it would just be a nice change of pace.

    I actually believe their business model to be more based on the idea that it's easier to beg for forgiveness (or pay the piddling fine) then to actually ask for permission.

    Posted via CB10
    TheScionicMan likes this.
    01-11-14 12:35 PM
  16. raino's Avatar
    1. So you rather have dumb ads meaning they are random because you don't want reminders that technology is advancing and can scan words in emails
    Lol. Comprehension fail. This is what I said:

    They serve as a reminder that not everything I'm doing through that account is being spied upon for commercial purposes.
    I know words in emails can be scanned. Note the last three words in my quote, which I have highlighted for emphasis lest you make another leap in logic.

    and help determine which of the available ads that was purchased might best apply to you.
    Don't need any such help, especially if it involves my emails being mined.

    Google filters Spam better and I have both services.
    I too have both, and Gmail's no better than Hotmail. 1-1.

    I also don't mind Google making more money because they smartly send me ads that their bot has determined might interest. Google makes more money and my services with Google gets better.
    Except Hotmail is showing that's it's possible to make money without trawling through emails to generate targeted ads. Mind blown, huh?
    01-11-14 01:15 PM
  17. Toodeurep's Avatar
    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.
    Here is my scenario.

    Right now, you can go online and using Google services such as Street View; see pictures of my children, home, mom, niece, license plates on my cars and even look inside my home. You can even see what is going on inside. The latter being more of a challenge of course. I did not permit this. In fact, I have asked them to remove them. Which they haven't. They have used services such as these to make a profit by selling an experience to their customers. My privacy has been violated for their benefit.
    01-11-14 01:37 PM
  18. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    During your BB ownership days, you must have been ok with giving out your phone number to everyone who had your PIN, am I right?
    No, I wouldn't have been. But that's the kicker. Google isn't giving out the G+ user's email address. All they have done is add the ability to extend the messaging platform to accommodate messaging in email format. The sender never ever sees the recipient's email address.
    But you'd be OK with them getting to call you, as long as your number was obscured? SMS as long as it is hidden? The rest of your circles?

    I can see how this benefits Google, but how does it help me? Email is the inner sanctum of communication. To treat it like just another part of as social network is wrong, IMO. People that I didn't give my email to can email me. Thanks for the convenience, Google. It would have been SO difficult to give an acquaintance my email IF I wanted to...
    raino and Vorkosigan like this.
    01-11-14 02:25 PM
  19. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    But you'd be OK with them getting to call you, as long as your number was obscured? SMS as long as it is hidden? The rest of your circles?
    Sounds an awful lot like BBM Voice and PIN/BBM messaging to me.
    01-11-14 02:47 PM
  20. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    Sounds an awful lot like BBM Voice and PIN/BBM messaging to me.
    Yeah, that's exactly the same...

    Just because you love everything that Google does, doesn't mean that we all do or that there aren't privacy implications involved.
    01-11-14 03:04 PM
  21. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Yeah, that's exactly the same...
    What are you saying... Comparing the two are okay when debating against, but suddenly not so identical when arguing in favor?

    Just because you love everything that Google does, doesn't mean that we all do or that there aren't privacy implications involved.
    I'm not trying to convince people to love Google, nor have I made any claims that they are perfect. All I've tried to do is stem all the sensationalist misinformation passed around as truth. I couldn't care less who chooses to use or not use Google.

    SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta
    MERCDROID likes this.
    01-11-14 03:42 PM
  22. Nicholas Kathrein's Avatar
    Lol. Comprehension fail. This is what I said:



    I know words in emails can be scanned. Note the last three words in my quote, which I have highlighted for emphasis lest you make another leap in logic.



    Don't need any such help, especially if it involves my emails being mined.



    I too have both, and Gmail's no better than Hotmail. 1-1.



    Except Hotmail is showing that's it's possible to make money without trawling through emails to generate targeted ads. Mind blown, huh?
    Sure you can make money at it but why 1/2 *** it. You know how to make more money and at the same time make ones that have a better hit rate then why not. An ad is an ad. You can be irrational about it if you want but most people who understands that spam filters scans the emails in the same manor as Google bot that targets ads.

    I disagree that Outlook and Gmail are equal in SPAM. I never got spam in my inbox but I do every so often in Outlook. I've also never seen one of my wanted emails filtered to spam. I have had that happen a few times with Outlook which causes me to check it more often meaning I spend more time since I don't completely trust it.
    01-11-14 04:35 PM
  23. raino's Avatar
    Sure you can make money at it but why 1/2 *** it. You know how to make more money and at the same time make ones that have a better hit rate then why not. An ad is an ad.
    With an outlook like that, I really hope you're an employee or at least a shareholder. Because you sure aren't thinking it through as a privacy concerned consumer.

    You can be irrational about it if you want but most people who understands that spam filters scans the emails in the same manor as Google bot that targets ads.
    And you obviously are trying to minimize what Google does, or actually have no grasp of the big picture. The difference between Google and a provider like Hotmail is that the latter's scanning of emails--for spam filtering--does not result in targeted ad generation or aggregation into other revenue generating services. So while the means to scanning may be the same, the ends are very much different.
    01-11-14 06:32 PM
  24. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    And you obviously are trying to minimize what Google does, or actually have no grasp of the big picture. The difference between Google and a provider like Hotmail is that the latter's scanning of emails--for spam filtering--does not result in targeted ad generation or aggregation into other revenue generating services. So while the means to scanning may be the same, the ends are very much different.
    What's the difference? The perceived invasion of privacy is based on the service provider scanning the information. Both Google and Microsoft/Hotmail scan the information. Neither of which gives away or sells the information. As to the end result, the end user gets more out of it from Google than from Hotmail. If a service is going to scan anyway, why not get the most out of that scanning? Neither of them are giving that scanned information out to third parties, yet one of them provides much better services over the other. What's the pickle?
    MERCDROID and pantlesspenguin like this.
    01-11-14 07:10 PM
  25. raino's Avatar
    What's the difference? The perceived invasion of privacy is based on the service provider scanning the information. Both Google and Microsoft/Hotmail scan the information. Neither of which gives away or sells the information. As to the end result, the end user gets more out of it from Google than from Hotmail. If a service is going to scan anyway, why not get the most out of that scanning? Neither of them are giving that scanned information out to third parties, yet one of them provides much better services over the other. What's the pickle?
    Again, the difference is why they're doing it--the ends, not they means. Spam filtering benefits me. Google's targeted ads may or may not benefit me, but certainly benefits Google. Going back to your tires example, you said something like if Michelin and/or a good local installer is not using Google's advertising, that's on them. But this did not contradict my point--that Google is serving you up ads on who's paying, not necessarily what's better for you. And I have often seen companies with inferior products/services spend more on advertising, customer specials, incentives, etc--hoping increased visibility may bring them customers.

    And the "better service" I'm looking for when checking email is...email. Targeted ads in my email don't give me better service. Not only are they a nuisance (which Hotmail's ads are too,) they are a constant reminder of my privacy being violated.
    MERCDROID likes this.
    01-11-14 10:21 PM
121 ... 2345

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