Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Halts Gmail Scanning for Education Apps Users

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the but-we-were-only-peeking dept.

Education 67

itwbennett (1594911) writes "Google will no longer scan the email messages of students and other school staff who use its Google Apps for Education suite, exempting about 30 million users from the chronically controversial practice for Gmail advertising. In addition, Google is removing the option for Apps for Education administrators to allow ads to be shown to their users. Until now, ads were turned off by default, but admins could turn on this feature at their discretion. A Google spokesperson called the move part of a 'continued evolution of our efforts to provide the best experience for our users, including students' and not a response to a recent lawsuit alleging that by scanning Gmail messages Google violated wiretapping laws and breached users' privacy."

cancel ×

67 comments

Scanning (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46888391)

Whether it's the message or the subject, they shouldn't do this. I don't feel it's appropriate regardless of e-mail provider.

Allow us to have it scanned, but it should be off by default. It feels like an invasion of privacy.

Re:Scanning (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 3 months ago | (#46888553)

>It feels like an invasion of privacy.

Then use someone else.^1 It's not difficult.

If you don't know that there are other email providers or that you can set up your own mail server, then the problem lies with /you/, not Google.

But that's only the beginning. If you don't want people looking at your stuff, encrypt it. Email is a postcard without any ability to put an "envelope" around it except full-on encryption. Otherwise /anyone/ in the RECEIVED: chain and Tinfoil Agencies can read it.^2

Sorry, but your argument is invalid.

--
BMO

Footnotes:

1. My oldest active email address is literally in someone's basement on their LAN. For 18 years, roughly.

2. Before the idiots chime in here and say "but nobody should be looking at all!!#$!$#!@#" - not every country has the same privacy laws, and not every provider in the RECEIVED: chain has the same policies. Depending on Google to defend your privacy with plaintext messages is dumb.

Re:Scanning (3, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#46888629)

2. Before the idiots chime in here and say "but nobody should be looking at all!!#$!$#!@#" - not every country has the same privacy laws, and not every provider in the RECEIVED: chain has the same policies. Depending on Google to defend your privacy with plaintext messages is dumb.

It's neither idiotic, nor dumb. The way email works might be part of your specialist knowledge (and mine and most people who read slashdot). But that doesn't mean that perfectly intelligent people in other domains know how email is implemented. If you took a survey of doctors or architects or humanities professors, then probably a minority would know about the plaintext transport of email, They are not stupid people, they just know about different things. And many things that they know about you don't. But they are not calling you an idiot.

When we criticise the bad behaviour of tech companies, we do it for EVERYONE, not just for computer geeks. People without this specific field of interest don't deserve to have their lack of specialist knowledge taken advantage of any more than they deserve to be called idiots by the likes of you.

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889793)

People without this specific field of interest don't deserve to have their lack of specialist knowledge taken advantage of any more than they deserve to be called idiots by the likes of you.

So, how would you prevent them from using email? That'd be an easier solution than getting every email provider and every server in the transportation chain (including local area networks) to never look at the messages.

Re:Scanning (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | about 3 months ago | (#46891799)

So, how would you prevent them from using email?

You don't.

That'd be an easier solution than getting every email provider and every server in the transportation chain (including local area networks) to never look at the messages.

Let them. http://www.gnupg.org/ [gnupg.org]

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1 hQEMAyC/fm5RhHydAQgAiDnkR3bTq3oU+7y/7WMcvH1/5yfgRdYWC+xu23RXTZvu gbDcg5TA7JNhM8ePB78mmayn0TxWNKJX0vao5qMmi7sZuRI2ILIbFIsvUOLx5ORo gIcLxlLiEKeyjAXwBEc2FASiOGsI83h7HBFWep0MjJSjumXXHWPipQj4WcAhZRlS Y6cPPn8z5Hc+eQVlfMpkpTWbtyOGc41UzBe8U5xt7MzNFjGK/ISAhaqSkwZ+UxOV HmjIUo+Ud1/5PPmLHipaOz2AC4CCecz8/HL6ZHBMKM4ejrKqquL6ZWv5rrGJTKc/ 5plI36As/BQ3qjDG4J462QLJGIp4DLkMlGzB+NnwMdKSAceQglrywpqXm/IL/k28 WTWjGyYiEeGhbhNdWsF0GdXplbA5vkgqFdlt7lgseVrgAODNkkd7r1bUSzsPlmfI TdOAv/ykallaG5CILRp/zAXaz8nNXnRiKwfu/D3dUfVqSivbzC/UNnMVPYVMWFjv EQQ0ggU7c8RJAOyvagg3F32HY67RYMNGKxME2peCY+7iNSk= =KfJ3 -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Re:Scanning (1)

bmo (77928) | about 3 months ago | (#46902981)

The way email works might be part of your specialist knowledge

Every internet guide for "Dummies" since the dawn of time/the Internet says that email is no more than a postcard.

It's not "specialist knowledge.

Encryption for email is the rough equivalent of using https to access a web page, or WPA encryption at the router, which many "neophytes" know about already. If your mind flies away from your skull and disappears when encryption is mentioned in conjunction with email, the problem lies with your inability apply one concept in one use with another use. It's like knowing how to cook a rack of ribs on the barbecue and then getting completely befuddled when someone asks you to cook a steak and then refusing to crack open a cookbook. It's /your/ fault.

I've been talking about this stuff for the last 20(mumble) years, since the US government threatened Phil Zimmerman with jail. After two decades of people simply refusing to listen, my conclusion is that the problem lies with them, and not me. And it's not like I'm a bad teacher. I can teach someone the entirety of trigonometry concepts in the space of 20 minutes (and they understand it), though I'm not quite as good as Vi Hart.

--
BMO

Re:Scanning (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#46903135)

I think you just continued to demonstrate that you don't understand the world of ordinary people. (i.e. non-geeks).

After two decades of people simply refusing to listen, my conclusion is that the problem lies with them, and not me.

Actually of course the problem lies with the geeks of the internet failing to implement a more secure email standard, when they recognised that was needed.

Re:Scanning (4, Informative)

nblender (741424) | about 3 months ago | (#46888709)

Then use someone else.^1 It's not difficult.

Many schools now use Google apps for students. That includes Gmail, Drive, and productivity apps. My son is required to hand his assignments in via Google Drive and use Gmail to communicate with teachers and fellow students... So "use someone else" is a nice generalization but not always an option... That's why I'm happy to see this.

fwiw, personally, I have always run my own mailserver/webserver/dns.

Re:Scanning (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#46888875)

My son is required to hand his assignments in via Google Drive

What happened to paper?

Re:Scanning (3, Funny)

nblender (741424) | about 3 months ago | (#46888973)

The dog ate it.

Re:Scanning (1)

immaterial (1520413) | about 3 months ago | (#46889057)

Teachers don't want your essays on paper, that would make it impossible (ok, very difficult) for them to use automated grading [slashdot.org] or at the very least automated plagiarism detection. Everything must be submitted digitally nowadays.

Re:Scanning (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#46889315)

Teachers can go fuck themselves, then. Or simply use a scanner. I'm not going to be treated like a criminal by some lazy fat-ass. This simply won't fly around here anyway. Hooray for conservative Europe.

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46952069)

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889181)

Can't have turnitin.com scan papers for plagiarism with essays on hardcopy.

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46952119)

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46888937)

Of course use someone else is still an option. Unless the school is strangely requiring gmail be used for personal email too. Also, you can set up a Google Account to access Google Apps without signing up for gmail.

Otherwise it's no different than if your employer uses Google Apps. All Google learn in those circumstances is that someone with that name happens to work at that company/study at that school.

Re:Scanning (1)

nblender (741424) | about 3 months ago | (#46888961)

My son uses my mail server for personal mail.

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889365)

It is always an option. Those students only have to use those accounts for their schoolwork. They can use another for everything else.

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46890801)

Read TFA. What's been removed is not Google's scanning which was already off by default, but the school's ability to turn the scanning on. It's schools that are being restricted in what they can do, not Google..

Re:Scanning (1)

BitterOak (537666) | about 3 months ago | (#46892819)

My son is required to hand his assignments in via Google Drive and use Gmail to communicate with teachers and fellow students...

I can certainly understand a university requiring gmail to communicate with teachers, but I've never heard of a university requiring students to use gmail to communicate with fellow students. Does that mean that if I become friends with someone in one of my classes I cannot use any e-mail system other than gmail if I want to make plans with them? That sounds like a huge invasion of privacy, and frankly, I'm not even sure how this rule would be enforced.

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889235)

Then use someone else.^1 It's not difficult.

If you don't know that there are other email providers or that you can set up your own mail server, then the problem lies with /you/, not Google.

Ummm... they're talking about school email. As in the email that most schools REQUIRE you to use. You can provide individual teachers with another email address, but the school will typically only deal with the email address that they provide. Of course, you should probably be using multiple email addresses, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't just not use this email if you're going to a school that uses GMail.

Re:Scanning (3, Informative)

beezly (197427) | about 3 months ago | (#46888801)

I've been involved in negotiations with a couple of contracts relating to Google Apps for Enterprise/Education.

In each one, the "scanning" has been explicitly mentioned in the contract. In each one, scanning for the purposes of advertising has only happened if the domain administrator allows it to happen. If it is turned off, Google will not scan mail for the purposes of advertising content.

There are of course other reasons why google will scan your email. Spam/Antivirus filtering and indexing to enable search functionality are two that come to mind.

Basically, all Google have done is remove the domain administrators ability to allow ads, and I'm not aware of anyone I know who used Google Apps for Education/Enterprise with it turned on anyway.

Re:Scanning (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 3 months ago | (#46888817)

Whether it's the message or the subject, they shouldn't do this.

If you leave it open, someone (email provider) will read it. Why was the email protocol designed as an open postcard service (no privacy) instead of a sealed envelope (some privacy) service?

Re:Scanning (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 3 months ago | (#46889863)

Perhaps the fact that the internet was initially conceived of as a method for educational institutions to quickly exchange communications and research data? A situation in which privacy had very limited application, and the demands of delivering it were prohibitively costly - remember, at the time individuals didn't own computers, the entire processing capacity of the MIT, Harvard, etc. computer department was considerably smaller than your smart phone possess today, and encryption is computationally expensive.

Or perhaps because some of the designers of those early systems were also under DOD contract to develop a secure version of the internet for military use, and had to be very careful not to allow any of their classified research to leak into their public projects?

Re:Scanning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46890637)

It feels like an invasion of privacy.

Gosh, I wouldn't want your feelings to be hurt. Is this a hippie commune or Slashdot? Why don't you tell us what your logic tells you? Is it that targeted advertising has no significant impact on your privacy? Because that's what my logic tells me.

And we believe them why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46888401)

Google: "We did turn it off. For six hours."

Re:And we believe them why? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#46888665)

They've been talking about doing end-to-end encryption in the browser. That's incompatible with ad scanning, so this is one foot forward in that direction.

Googlers are still really ripped about PRISM. They were naive, but no longer.

Re:And we believe them why? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#46888909)

They've been talking about doing end-to-end encryption in the browser. That's incompatible with ad scanning, so this is one foot forward in that direction.

Is it really incompatible with ad-scanning?

If I'm end-to-end encrypted in my connection between my browser and Google, in the back end, Google still has everything in the clear don't they?

If I send to another Gmail user, they may also have end-to-end encryption between themselves and Google, but again, Google has everything in the clear.

Unless you're talking about end-to-end encryption starting from the sender all the way to the receiver, the notion that Google can't scan your emails and do ad choices seems naive.

If Google can display you your email without all of the encryption happening local to you, Google can still scan your email -- for ads or any other purposes.

I just don't see end-to-end encryption in the browser changing the fact that Google still gets all of the data in its unencrypted form.

And I don't see them building a system which encrypts the data from themselves so they can never see it. Because, they want to be able to scan it to sell ads.

Also business and gov't accounts (3, Informative)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 3 months ago | (#46888429)

Google will also soon stop scanning the accounts of Google Apps customers with Business, Government and legacy accounts for the free version.

- http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/... [techcrunch.com]

Re:Also business and gov't accounts (1)

Barryke (772876) | about 3 months ago | (#46888579)

Indeed, so it seems. Media says so, but i did not see this news outed officially by Google yet.

I read this at http://tweakers.net/nieuws/957... [tweakers.net]
which cited http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/... [techcrunch.com]
but that lacks source, i for one did not find the original Google statement regarding business anywhere.

If true, i guess the gmail PGP they considered made it impossible to scan the emails anyway, so they might as well make a big deal out of it. First education ofcourse, it'll simplify that lawsuit and all. http://www.edweek.org/ew/artic... [edweek.org]

Beans don't burn on the grill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46888435)

Well we're movin on up,
To the east side.
To a deluxe apartment in the sky.
Movin on up,
To the east side.
We finally got a piece of the pie.

Fish don't fry in the kitchen;
Beans don't burn on the grill.
Took a whole lotta tryin',
Just to get up that hill.
Now we're up in the big leagues,
Gettin' our turn at bat.
As long as we live, it's you and me baby,
There ain't nothin wrong with that.

Well we're movin on up,
To the east side.
To a deluxe apartment in the sky.
Movin on up,
To the east side.
We finally got a piece of the pie.

How do I get that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46888441)

So if Google is violating wiretap laws, how can I sign up to get them to stop scanning my email?

Oh, wait, never.

New Google Mission Statement (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 3 months ago | (#46888517)

New Google Mission Statement: "Don't continue to be evil after we've been called out on it in the tech press."

Re:New Google Mission Statement (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 months ago | (#46890793)

New Google Mission Statement: "Don't continue to be evil after we've been called out on it in the tech press."

More like "don't continue to be evil after being called out on it in court [wsj.com] ".

Seriously - how does the fact Google got sued over the practice not get mentioned here?

Missing an important information... (2)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about 3 months ago | (#46888529)

The summary should read

Google will no longer scan the email messages of students [...] for advertising purposes

. The Google blog post does not mention other types of scanning (neither to confirm or deny their existence, nor to announce that they will cease).

Re:Missing an important information... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46888719)

Google will also continue scanning Gmail messages in the consumer version and in Google Apps for non-advertising purposes, such as security and overall productivity, the spokeswoman said.

"In Gmail for Google Apps for Education, this includes virus and spam protection, spell check, relevant search results and features like Priority Inbox and auto-detection of calendar events. Scanning to provide product features is done on all incoming emails and is 100 percent automated," she said.

Re:Missing an important information... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 3 months ago | (#46888935)

As an email administrator, all good administrators scan email. This is done for Spam filtering as well as things like Virus protection, archiving/indexing (Freedom of Information Act). Most of it is automated and humans are almost never involved in reading email. At this Macro level, I have but only one reservation, at any point humans can become involved. This includes Gmail's scanning for advertisements.

The issue isn't the scanning, it is the abuse (potential) of humans inserting themselves into the process to data mine on SPECIFIC users, without any other controls in place. I don't care about my data being aggregated, I care about my data being mined to be used against me. Given enough data, all of us are vulnerable.

Technology isn't the problem. It never was. The problem is humans, and always will be.

Re:Missing an important information... (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#46889119)

Yes, but what google is likely doing is scanning email for aggregate data. For example, I'm fairly certain Google and Facebook know before all of us who's going to win elections.

Re:Missing an important information... (0)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 3 months ago | (#46889457)

So does Nate Silver. But while he was the darling of the left a couple years ago, his current predictions have them steaming mad. ;)

Re:Missing an important information... (1)

Spamalope (91802) | about 3 months ago | (#46890025)

The issue isn't the scanning, it is the abuse (potential) of humans inserting themselves into the process to data mine on SPECIFIC users, without any other controls in place. I don't care about my data being aggregated, I care about my data being mined to be used against me. Given enough data, all of us are vulnerable.

Technology isn't the problem. It never was. The problem is humans, and always will be.

How much are the emails of your competitor's best salesmen worth to you? What if they were scanned to forward only those between him and his customers? What if you got alerts when a new prospect emailed? There is so much profitable data in email if only you fully monetize it! (and resell it through a Business Intelligence '3rd party' so you can claim to be the victim when caught!)

Re:Missing an important information... (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 3 months ago | (#46892025)

How much are the emails of your competitor's best salesmen worth to you?

How do you know who your competitor's best salesman is? Why don't you just hire them with an offer they can't refuse?

Re:Missing an important information... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 3 months ago | (#46894495)

If you actually tried to comprehend my point, I covered your case. I care about data being mined being used against me (best salesman's email) aggregating data will not poach your salesman, that would take human intervention. Google isn't selling the Salesman's Email (yet) .

Re:Missing an important information... (1)

Spamalope (91802) | about 3 months ago | (#46889879)

The summary should read

Google will no longer scan the email messages of students [...] for advertising purposes

. The Google blog post does not mention other types of scanning (neither to confirm or deny their existence, nor to announce that they will cease).

Facilitating scanning for any purpose by '3rd parties' is still on the table too.

Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46888593)

It's not wiretapping because you give consent to the scanning when you sign up for their FREE email account.

If you want privacy, get an email service that features it. Don't expect privacy when you willfully opt-in.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 3 months ago | (#46888639)

Kindergarten through high school students typically aren't old enough to give legal consent.

I'm quite sure that this decision came not out of Google's corporate heart, but out of its legal immune system.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (1)

immaterial (1520413) | about 3 months ago | (#46888901)

No, but their parents are. The parental authorization for Google Apps for Education comes home with all the rest of the paperwork at the beginning of the school year here.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 3 months ago | (#46889171)

In loco parentis. The school picks the provider based upon whatever guidelines they are required to adhere to. Attending the school requires using the school's services, whomever provides them. It's likely that the parents don't even know the kids have a school email account, never mind who hosts the service.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 3 months ago | (#46889511)

Of course we all know there's incentives provided to school districts and Google of course gets more subscribers, more accounts and more hooks into the kids. I doubt 90% of the parents even know what apps or access their kids have while at school. I do because my kids have been hacking the firewalls for years so I routinely get a "your son/daughter has been violating school policy.... blah blah blah" I retort "fix your insecure shit, they're providing vulnerability testing services to you for free!"

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (1)

immaterial (1520413) | about 3 months ago | (#46889975)

It's likely that the parents don't even know the kids have a school email account, never mind who hosts the service.

You say that in response to me pointing out my local schools send and authorization form to parents...? I doubt there's a school anywhere that's stupid enough to give kids an email address without parental permission and signing of a waiver. All it takes is one precious snowflake unexpectedly getting porn spam and the school is in hot water. In loco parentis doesn't mean schools can do whatever they want.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46890545)

Your local schools many send out authorization forms, but I can guarantee the three local schools my daughters attend do not send out authorization forms for the numerous online services students are required to use for submitting homework, class and upcoming homework schedules, grades / progress reports, online tests, and correspondences with school facility.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46892097)

i work with schools, and I have one that did just this. I argued at length with them after the fact and in the end they relented to inform the parents but not disclose the privacy issues as they didn't want to alarm the parents. (Sigh)

I'm in a two party consent state (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46889031)

I don't use Gmail. If I send email to another person and that person uses gmail routed through their own domain, I didn't consent to use Gmail and I wasn't informed that Gmail would see my mail. That sounds like wiretapping to me. If the email I sent was under a pre-agreed boilerplate NDA, I doubt I could go after the other person for using Gmail without telling me. They would not get stuck with the liability. So the unlawful interception was by Google and not by either of the endpoints.

Unlawful interception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46891353)

Do you also object to MTAs "seeing" your email? Email processing is not unlawful interception.

Re:Unlawful interception (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46892577)

They are examining the content and retaining info from it. That's different from merely transporting it.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (1)

BradMajors (995624) | about 3 months ago | (#46889049)

Persons who don't have a gmail account, but send an email to a gmail account never consented to have their email scanned. The wiretapping laws in some states require the consent of both parties.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46890311)

States do not have the right to enforce a wiretapping law on interstate communications. That is handled under the Federal wiretapping law, which requires consent from one party.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 months ago | (#46890593)

It's not wiretapping because you give consent to the scanning when you sign up for their FREE email account.

Works for one-party consent, but two-party, not so much.

Which was the basis of several lawsuits - basically if you're a sender, who doesn't agree to Google's ToS, are still bound by them by sending an email to a Google Mail user.

We used to joke about "Reading this comment means you pay me $10", but it's basically the same thing - suddenly doing something "normal" (like sending an email) can bind you legally to terms you never knew about, seen, or explicitly agreed to.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit. It's not wiretapping (1)

hendrips (2722525) | about 3 months ago | (#46890955)

Not just that, but Gmail educational accounts usually end in @Name_Of_Institution. So, even if you could make the dubious argument that the sender is responsible for knowing Gmail's terms if they want to send email to a Gmail recipient, there's no way to know that the recipient uses Gmail.

Good start, but..... (1)

Jason Heiken (3000763) | about 3 months ago | (#46889291)

How about allowing schools to use the old HTTP for searches instead of enforcing the HTTPS. All it does is bring an added expense into the district for me to filter the SSL searches to keep kids from accessing images that they shouldn't. By forcing all searches through SSL, filters can no longer be applied to the encrypted data without using some form of DPI-SSL. We don't host our own DNS, so adding nossl to the DNS CNAME won't work. Thanks Google for making it more expensive to be CIPA compliant.

Big whoop (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 3 months ago | (#46889371)

Oh noes! A computer program is going to scan my email for keywords and show me relevant ads??

The horror.

Continued Evolution (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 3 months ago | (#46889391)

Bullshit, it's called getting the legal screws applied to your nuts [thinkprogress.org] , not some change of heart concerning privacy by Google. They're facing multiple lawsuits and they're making concessions that they know they'll have to implement anyway. I'm hoping Judge Koh throws the book at these hypocrites.

F*ck Google Apps (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about 3 months ago | (#46890229)

Moved three domains already over to Outlook.com.

Re:F*ck Google Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46891125)

Oh yea THATS better

pathetic sheep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46890759)

A Google spokesperson called the move part of a 'continued evolution of our efforts to provide the best experience for our users, including students' and not a response to a giant pink-zebra-stripped giraffe astronomers have sighted orbiting the moon.

It seems like you were trying to use "and not" to introduce a non-sequiteur. FTFY

seriously the pick-on-Google stuff is pretty bad. I don't think it's hypocritical at all to use GMail and still complain about GMail, but complaints ought to at least be framed as a complaint. This one sounds more like "I've been sleeping with Sally but I'm pretty sure she has cooties." / "EEEEWWWWW cooties are the WORST and I've always thought Sally had them because well just look at her."

Suppose we held each other to this bar: finish your fucking thought. Actually make complex arguments and don't personify corporations and then have ad-hominem rantfests about them. If we did that maybe people would actually know how information flows through the ad system because they would not be sitting around navel-gazing, "well MY opinion on the Creepyness Issue is that I feel that, ah, my credit card number is private." seriously, step up your damned game guys.

If we did that, perhaps it'd become clear that GMail is getting way, way too much attention and Android way too little.

of course, it doesn't matter to you that the magnitude of the two issues are completely different in size, so much that the first one almost vanishes next to the second. That's not important. What's important? With Android, you can't blame Google for everything any more because there's more than one company involved, so the "Sally has Cooties" game is over. And you also have to click through something every time your data is shared which tries to put the blame back on you. As soon as someone asks you to take responsibility you move your rage elsewhere. It's pathetic.

Re:pathetic sheep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46892175)

Do you feel better now? Good. Now, back to the discussion at hand . . .

oblig monty python (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46894539)

"I'm Brian, and so is my wife!"

Nobody complains about spam filters! (1)

wealthychef (584778) | about 3 months ago | (#46907755)

When you enable spam filtering in Google, the spam filter "reads all your email" in exactly the same way the "invasive" practice from this lawsuit does. It just does it to serve Google and not the user. You have no privacy on the Internet unless you encrypt your traffic, and not even then if the NSA has their way. Until people get that, they should assume that people are "reading" their messages.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...