From the article:<p>> <i>Google might agree to let a random online shopping company scan what I’m typing into Gmail, but I did not agree.</i><p>Google might, in the sense that they could start, but Google doesn't do (and never has done) what is described.<p>First of all, Google has never let companies scan what you type. It did let companies target based on content of messages, but that involves advertisers sharing targeting information with Google, not Google sharing email content with advertisers.<p>Second of all, even that stopped last year. From the Google announcement:<p>> <i>G Suite’s Gmail is already not used as input for ads personalization, and Google has decided to follow suit later this year in our free consumer Gmail service. Consumer Gmail content will not be used or scanned for any ads personalization after this change. This decision brings Gmail ads in line with how we personalize ads for other Google products.</i><p>( <a href="https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in...</a> )
Can we really continue to claim that we're unaware Google, Facebook, and other web companies are monitoring everything they can and sharing the information they collect, sometimes for profit, sometimes accidentally, and sometimes compelled by legal orders?<p>This isn't merely a legal technicality hidden in the terms of service. We know they're doing it, and by continuing to use the service we are consenting, however unhappily.
Countless companies every year hire security auditors, and get back a 100-page report in 8 point font filled with vulnerabilities, many of them marked "severe" or "critical." Forcing companies to then publicize those reports will be burdensome and counterproductive.
whats up with the contradictory first point the article is making?<p>1) This data privacy glitch is just like Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, except it isn’t.<p>well, if its not, then why even bring it up? that part smells like sensationalism to me..<p>things doesn't get better when we realize there are no indications of any actual leaking of anyones anything.<p>The bug this article refers to was pretty bad, and googles handling of it was indeed poor. but this is just bad journalism.
"There’s no quick fix here."<p>I think people are thinking to small. Imagine if you could own your data profile and "invest" it into websites or services. Everyone builds their services to accept this same "profile" formatting and the user takes it where they pleases.<p>This would mean small upstarts can compete with google and Facebook (who right now have a huge head start on having all this data) by having a better UX.<p>right now, everything is trapped in all these different walled gardens. I see it like your cellphone only being able to call cell phones of the exact make and model of your own.
I suspect that the government will feel compelled to get involved here and I'm guessing the default ask of the public is that they do. But is a class action an option? Given that there's no evidence of a breach, does that means there's no actual damages to claim?
Google is the quintessential evil tech corporation, and the federal government should prevent them from retaining the power they currently hold over the economy and society as a private autocratic monopoly.
I wish Google would let me pay to just have 0 ads and maximum privacy. I would pay a lot for that and I would be a happier user since all my pet peeves seem to come from them dumbing down products so they can fit ads.<p>YouTube Red is a good start, hopefully this spreads.
This happens again and again...<p>a. oh no!!!<p>b. nobody will go to prison<p>c. a programmer will be fired<p>d. managers will get bonuses<p>e. nobody will change the way they write programs, process data, etc.<p>f. go to point a
Huge ad for WhatsApp just below the fold. Not only is it ironic given the subject matter, it's not blocked by Brave.<p>Also, this has got to stop mentality is too soft. That time passed when Uber pulled the wool over everyone's eyes while the CEO stepped down.<p>We need more Captains, less crew.