Tampons, Google and privacy

So I'm reading all of this stuff on ABCnews.com (from AP) about how Google will be “reading” e-mail to serve ads and that it's bad, immoral and will lead to the spread of Ebola or something. Wow do people need to get a grip.

You know, my mail server reads my clients' e-mail all of the time for the purpose of weeding out spam. Come to think of it, so do the other free e-mail services. But now, it's bad because the same process is being used to serve relevant ads to you. Huh. I'm not seeing the connection there to how this will contribute to the fall of Western Society.

Have you watched TV lately? Probably, I should think. I've seen a lot of tampon commercials. I've seen a lot of pad spots too (with wings). The funny thing is that I have wrinklies, and as such have no need for these feminine products. The advertiser has wasted money on pitching a product that I don't need or want, and all I get out of it is an opportunity to make jokes about it on my blog.

To date, Google has offered advertising that is relevant in the context of the content you're viewing. It's pretty cool when I look at, say, a motherboard review, and the ad has links to a vendor that has it at low, low prices. Very convenient. Sure beats the tampon ad. In fact, advertising isn't that evil when it sells something that appeals to me. I like to buy stuff. Who doesn't?

The application of the same concept to my e-mail isn't offensive to me (though I can see already that, the way my friends think, I'll get a lot of sex ads, assuming Google allows them). I'm guessing that Google isn't going to ask me for my social security number or my address, so even if they profile “me” via e-mail, a la Doubleclick back in the day, who cares? There is no human intervention, and it's not like someone is gonna stop me at the mall and say, “Hey, you and your friends have a dirty mind. By the way, did Amazon handle that return adequately for you?” No person at Google is going to say, “We've got that Jeff Putz guy now! We'll expose him as a pervert and frequent Amazon merchandise returner!“

People get all freaked out by the most ridiculous things.

12 Comments

  • While we're at it, maybe we should tap your phone, so we can better target your junk mail.

  • Please... that's not even in the neighborhood of being the same thing.

  • Why not in the neighborhood? I expect my email to be a private communication between me and someone else. Just like my phone.



    The only thing different is that Google is providing GMail for free, but if they offer to pay for my phone if they can tap it, I won't be doing that either.



    I would say email is *worse*, since it's so much more easily archived and indexed. Yeah, my ISP server necessarily holds my email for a while, but they don't archive it, search it, and try to extract profiles based on it.



    I guess you could make an argument that email normally passes in the clear on a public network anyway, but the lack of archiving and searchability makes it reasonably private unless someone goes to an awful lot of trouble.



    And personally, I don't care to have ads better targetted to me, anyway. I'd rather they be totally irrelevant, so I'm more likely to save my money. If I want something, Google already does a good job of finding what I ask for.

  • Your phone is on a huge network where people are listening, maybe even the feds. Your mail can be outright stolen from your mailbox or fall off the truck. Even if you get it, unless you burn it, it probably goes to the garbage or a recycling plant. All kinds of actual people touching your sensitive "data."



    Again... who is touching your e-mail on Google? No one... it's all machines. It's not the big deal that the people in the linked article make it to be.

  • Stealing from my mailbox is a federal crime. It's unlikely to "fall off the truck." I shred my sensitive mail before throwing it out. Listening in on my phone is also a federal crime, unless you are a law enforcement officer with a warrant (though that's been weakened lately, sadly enough).



    Compare that to Google, saying that as a matter of course they're going to keep my private communications around forever, index them, and use the data for profit. If they were the phone company, they'd go to prison for that.



    And you still haven't told me what's so different about a phone tap. If we had voice recognition software looking for keywords, and automatically sending you junk mail about tampons if you used that word in conversation, would you be okay with that? If we also stored recordings of every phone conversation you ever have, for easy retrieval by whoever's interested, would that be fine too?



  • I did tell you what's different about a phone tap... it's a human being. There is no mechanical indexing of phone conversations, so why would you even compare it to that? Furthermore, at no point has Google said they're going to "keep my private communications around forever, index them, and use the data for profit." Whatever Google will have "recorded" is not available for "easy retrieval by whoever's interested."



    Give the black helicopters a rest...

  • Um...they said they'll keep it after you close the account. They said they'll serve ads to you based on the content of your email. This is precisely analogous to the questions in my last paragraph. So what do you think? If a computer tapped your phone and sent you junk mail, based on keywords, and archived all your phone calls on a giant hard disk, how would you feel about it?







  • Whatever dude... you're going to think what you're going to think. Read the privacy policy:



    "You should be aware, however, that residual copies of information may remain stored on our systems even after the deletion of information or the termination of your account."



    "Residual" to me means that it's lingering backup stuff. Your fears are nonsense:



    "We will never rent, sell or share information that personally identifies you for marketing purposes without your express permission."

    "We serve highly relevant ads and other information as part of the service using our unique content-targeting technology. No human reads your email to target ads or related information to you without your consent."

    "Google will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your Gmail address or email content, with any third parties for marketing purposes without your express permission."

    "A limited set of employees are authorized to access user accounts, they are educated about the importance of maintaining user privacy, and their access to user accounts is recorded."

    "We implement technology and procedures to try to make sure that external parties cannot access or modify users’ personal information on our servers."



    You keep trying to make a case for conditions that don't exist.

  • it is about the customer perception.

  • "We serve highly relevant ads and other information as part of the service using our unique content-targeting technology. No human reads your email to target ads or related information to you without your consent."



    So...junk mail based on computer-extracted keywords from your telephone calls, ok or no? Simple question. No answer?



    As for the rest, Yahoo has arbitrarily changed their privacy policies, and sold information they previously claimed they wouldn't. Don't see why Google is necessarily any different.

  • /me Smacks forehead in disbelief



    Who is sending you junk mail? NOBODY. Again, you keep creating conditions that don't exist. We're talking about an ad on a Web site for a service that you don't pay for.

  • I used junk mail because *lots* of people already send that to me, but you could transform to whatever method of advertising you consider most equivalent. Bottom line, they are giving you ads based on content that's supposed to be private. If someone, in some way, is advertising to you based on a computer listening to your phone calls, is that okay? If they offer a free phone line on that basis, would you take it?



    In any case, an awful lot of people agree with me, it's hardly "black helicopter" stuff: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62976,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_6

Comments have been disabled for this content.