If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
These forums remain online primarily for archival purposes. While posting is still possible, it should not be considered a means for support. Please login to our portal and submit a ticket if you require assistance and we'll be more than happy to assist you.
Regular updates are posted to our blog and we will continue to post important notices to the Script Security forum section here. You can subscribe to that forum to automatically receive notifications.
Jonathan, you're completely missing the point of the conversation.
No one is saying Google is sending spam. But they ARE creating a profile of their Gmail "clients" FROM their PRIVATE email.
As to whether or not they decide to sell this information to others... well... read the terms of the contract they make you sign. I imagine they have the right to do pretty much whatever they want with your private information, just like the grocery stores and the cable company do.
There is no expectation of privacy in email. Never has been. It is transmitted through perhaps dozens of servers unencrypted, and could be intercepted by anyone at any of the server sites. Anyone can retrieve and store email, analyze it, sell it, or do whatever they wish with it. Andrew could easily read all of my email, and I would never know it.
The US Mail is private, and to open US Mail that isn't yours, you must obtain a court order. There is an expectation of privacy with the US Mail.
The concept of the NSA using a computer to scan thousands of emails for keywords, then select the ones that match a profile for more intensive scanning, processing down to the few hundred that a person reads to determine if it has intelligence potential is not an invasion of privacy or a violation of rights, any more than reading a newspaper to see a columnist's views is a violation of rights.
Targeting an individual and then intercepting all their email, US Mail, library loans, and other stuff is where we have to start worrying. And that is when the Government should have to obtain a court order.
The difference is that one action is conducted against a data stream, picking out keywords. The other is targeted against a person.
I assume you use "slamming" in a negative context. That's unfortunate.
I have never "slammed" anyone on this or any other board. Intelligent people are able to have discussions, explore alternate ideas and even disagree with each other, and not be disagreeable to one another.
Maybe you're not used to discussions where people passionately present well thought out, logical arguments, and you perceive that as "slamming".
In the circle of professionals I have the privilege of rubbing elbows with, we have no fear of dissecting an idea down to it's very core. Especially BIG issues such as the erosion of privacy! We don't "slam", but we do debate. And we all win by reaching down deep to embrace and understand new and foreign concepts.
And IF Andrew chose to do so, would you be okay with that?
What does it matter? Its a non-issue. I realize what I write in email can be viewed by anyone with the technical expertise to retrieve it, so it doesn't matter if I am OK with it or not. It simply is a fact of life.
If I'm offended by that, then I should not use email. Or take other actions to encrypt my email, use the US Mail, etc.
There are some proposals out there to create secure and, we hope, spam free email that cannot have the headers spoofed, etc. I hope one of those solutions works out, because I do see it as a problem.
Of course everyone has (or should have) a right to privacy and free speech.
The right of privacy in ones thoughts, ones home, and communications – to a certain extent, even the mail does not guarantee you full privacy.
I am aware that somewhere my buying preferences are being evaluated, my travel arrangements scrutinized and my surfing patterns analyzed. I cannot not pretend to I like it. I know for better or worse, “Big Brother is watching me”. However there is a positive side to this intrusion. My bank will call me if they think that an expense is not according to pattern. I feel safer with marshals checking luggage – even if the do profile olive colored men from the Middle East. And those surfing patterns result in better search engine features. I also have an alternative; I can use only cash, travel by private transport and hide behind firewalls and proxies.
When Goggle came out with their offer, I checked it, did not like the invasion into my privacy by their search engines and declined the offer.
As for Spam – I hate it. I will never buy any product advertised via Spam mail. If all the other Spam recipients do the same, it would stop tomorrow.
Of course everyone has (or should have) a right to privacy and free speech.
The right of privacy in ones thoughts, ones home, and communications – to a certain extent, even the mail does not guarantee you full privacy.
I am aware that somewhere my buying preferences are being evaluated, my travel arrangements scrutinized and my surfing patterns analyzed. I cannot not pretend to I like it. I know for better or worse, “Big Brother is watching me”. However there is a positive side to this intrusion. My bank will call me if they think that an expense is not according to pattern. I feel safer with marshals checking luggage – even if the do profile olive colored men from the Middle East. And those surfing patterns result in better search engine features. I also have an alternative; I can use only cash, travel by private transport and hide behind firewalls and proxies.
When Goggle came out with their offer, I checked it, did not like the invasion into my privacy by their search engines and declined the offer.
As for Spam – I hate it. I will never buy any product advertised via Spam mail. If all the other Spam recipients do the same, it would stop tomorrow.
For me, the rubber meets the road when its government rather than private business gathering the data. Government has the ability to deprive me of my rights in ways that a business cannot do, so restrictions on government have to be more stringent. The concept of "Big Brother" has never meant private industry to me, but government.
Anyway, I still maintain that spam is not pervasive because its effective; its pervasive because its profitable for those selling the lists of email addresses. Spamhaus.org maintains there are only about 200 spammers creating most of the spam; they sell the lists in "get rich quick" schemes. The spam doesn't generate sales of the products advertised. It only enriches those who are selling the service of spamming.
dude-- google no send spam; they use
Social Commentary! 
Comment