On Tuesday 02 November 2004 15:00, Ian Bruseker wrote: > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:42:56 -0600, Aaron Seigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > which is why there ought to be tighter privacy reigns put on these > > companies too. just because it's bad in more places than one doesn't make > > them all good. > > Agreed. > > > the cost of Google following everyone around makes it impractical. > > sorting through digital text is very practical. cost effective even. and > > very salable. > > Fair enough. But trying to avoid Google's tracking of you would > require you also stop browsing the web, since their ad bars are > everywhere. And I have yet to be thoroughly convince that Google has > any evil intent for the information they gather.
Google may not intend to do anything bad with the information they gather. But once it's sold, they have no control over what happens to it after that. > > > no, no and no. why? same reason i won't use GMail/Hotmail/etc: i respect > > my privacy. > > And everyone has the right to respect their own privacy to the level > they are comfortable with. Like I said, I use this account to receive > lists that are already public information (and my membership, by > posting to them, is also public information) and to have the > occassional small conversation with my wife. If Google figures out > that I wanted turkey for dinner two weeks ago, good for them, I don't > think they've gained much. > > > "You've already been collated, it's too late, just accept it." Not only > > is that defeatist, it's a lie we are told by the companies who are > > increasingly collecting our data. > > > > go back 10, 15, 30 and 50 years and take a look at the privacy > > differences. it's all reversible, and without getting rid of the "grid" > > Again, fair enough, it does get said alot, but I just don't see, other > than living off the grid, how you're going to avoid it. Easy. If I ask you for your credit card number, and expiry date, you'd tell me no. You'd have thought about giving it to me, and decided that you don't need to. That same "should I give something private away" process is at work when you evaluate gmail. The difference is that gmail offers you something in return. They offer you 1 Gig of disk space. The value of that disk space is ~$1. If I said I wanted to tap your phone lines, and document all of your conversations, and then sell everything that I find that MIGHT be of value to someone, you'd think I was a complete idiot, expecially if I pretended that $1 should be enough to tempt you into accepting my offer. But yet, that is what Google has done, and unfortunately, most people have said yes to it. And the comparison is fair. You COULD speak in an alternate language. But you won't, because the requirement on the other end is non-trivial. Unfortunately, you've missed this point. > > > does Shaw store your mail when it goes over their server? do they colate > > it? do they use it for market research? if yes, then don't use them. if > > no, which almost certainly the case, then your argument is a Chicken > > Little argument of absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the discussion. > > No, "Chicken Little" is saying your insurance company is going to get > ahold of your emails (not your argument, but it was made). That your > email is tossed around in plain text for anyone along the wire to read > is just fact. Is anyone doing it? Not necessarily. It's also > doubtful anyone at the post office will ever read your postcard, but > you still don't want to chance it, do you? And that's the failure of > all email, not just gmail. Insurance Companies in BC have (unsuccessfully) petitioned for access to Medical records, including DNA. How could you possibly think that they wouldn't use other, easier methods to access the same (or similar) data? > > > of course it's not GMail's fault. it's OUR fault. i'm not sure what part > > of that is escaping you: we have the choice to use or not to use things. > > if we choose not to use things that destroy privacy, we protect it. but > > just because those things exist, doesn't man we may as well use them > > because they exist. > > > > that's such an amazingly illogical string of thinking. > > And this is where I don't see how this is escaping you: It's my > choice, so stop telling me I shouldn't use it. I made my choice, now > shove off. (and I mean that in the nicest possible way. :-) ) I > knew the risks involved when I signed up for this account, just as I > did when I signed up for a Hotmail account many years ago, and I'm > tired of people telling me I'm stupid for using it just because _they_ > don't think I should. I don't think anyone said to not use it, Personally, I simply ask that you not mislead others by pretending that this solution doesn't undermine privacy. > > > this is corporate mail, on corporate servers. it was not searchable by > > anyone outside of Microsoft (and those they sent email to), and had to be > > gathered with a court order. > > And where exactly does it say that Google is going to sell the > contents of my email wholesale to the highest bidder? Where is my > email searchable outside of Google's servers? Yes, they use the > contents to figure out what to advertise, but did they send the > contents of this email thread to Microsoft because the word > "Microsoft" was in it? No, they sent Microsoft a bill saying "we > showed your add in 1000 emails, pay up". I don't feel my privacy was > invaded by that. Is it really that difficult to figure out that a company with at least an ok reputation for assisting people with finding information on the Internet would be phenomenal at providing information from such a small search area as a few billion user emails? > > > no, the whole "i don't care about privacy and don't care to educate > > myself on how to protect it" is what has taken us so far down that road. > > email is trivial to keep private. > > I never said I don't care about privacy. I am educated about privacy. > When I want to say something private I use methods other than this > email account to do it. You seem to equate anyone who has a gmail > account with a person who doesn't care about privacy, and I think you > are very wrong in making that assumption. As a sender, this is possible to say. But email is a 2 way communication medium. It's quite possible that you will recieve email which belongs in your ultra-secure mail address, and recieve it through gmail because the sender doesn't care about your security. Someone already said this was a waste of time, and I agree. People who care, aren't using, and won't start using gmail. People who don't care already have 2 zillion invites they're trying to give away, and are confused about why not everyone is using it, when they are offered them a "free" way in. I have none of those other cards you mentioned either. (Only a debit card) And I'm not really off-grid, as you call it. My vision of off-grid is likely much more indepth than yours, and frankly, I find it to be an extremely inviting place. Kev. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
