Hacker News Reader

Comment by aNoob7000 | Hacker News Reader

Are there any concerns about privacy? I mean now you have applications that will use a platform that Google is known to scan for information.

I know everyone has heard this before, but I would like to see what people think. A couple of days ago, people were all up in arms about phone companies selling your website traffic. What makes Google better than god forbid AT&T or Verizon?

View on HN

First of all, these are integrations that you explicitly install (like installing an app), so that's obviously opt-in. That's a bit different from the adtech stuff many companies do without any benefit to you.

Second, why do you ask just about Google and not the other companies involved? For example, if you're interested in the Trello integration, you also need to trust Trello with any data you send there. Presumably anyone interested in that particular add-on has already decided to trust both Gmail and Trello with their data, or they wouldn't install it.

Apparently this is what the install screen looks like: https://support.google.com/a/answer/176367?hl=en&ref_topic=1...

> First of all, these are integrations that you explicitly install (like installing an app), so that's obviously opt-in.

I don't think the privacy/security concerns should be so cavalierly dismissed. I'm sure I'm not the first to open a friend or relative's computer and discover half a dozen browser toolbars installed. The same is likely to occur here. HN readership may be pretty cautious about this stuff, but HN readership isn't Gmail's only user base.

Opt in isn't enough to stop it becoming a toilet.

Years of Britney Spears Naked Screensavers and malware "removers" have taught us that users are idiots. You can net a bazillion users with one "unlimited space" add-on.

Obviously, there's some vetting but that doesn't always work.

These add-ons could run on Google's servers and only have connectivity to your inbox and session. Instead, this appears to allow companies to do what they like, sharting your data over multiple jurisdictions if they want. Doesn't fill me with confidence.

> users are idiots

Please, for the last time, stop using this rhetoric. How would you like to be called an idiot? As a developer and a user, I'm deeply offended by this condescending attitude.

I really don't know what people like -- apparently opt-out is bad, so now we're using opt-in. Still, "opt-in" is bad because it's becoming a toilet? How do you expect _any_ platform to work? Self-host everything?

I said exactly how it should work. These add-ons should exist and operate within Google/gmail and nowhere else. They shouldn't be able to send your data anywhere else. Instantly curtails the unwashed from having their identities stolen.

As for the rhetoric, I'm sorry you feel picked upon. I was speaking generally, not directly at you... but if that still doesn't reflect your experience of the idiots bumping their way around your product, lucky you. Seriously. Even in B2B apps with supposed experts, we get some alarmingly silly feedback.

Re "idiots."

Everyone is ignorant about something. Take brilliant IT professionals. For many of them, manners and social skills are one of their weak areas.

I think this is a harmful stereotype

I think you are missing my point. Which, you know, maybe doesn't belong on HN at all. But neither does name calling to begin with. The guidelines say so, more or less.

No I see your point. I also think this is a harmful stereotype. It’s not about your point.

Well, I don't think I am stereotyping. I am absolutely not saying "all IT people have terrible social skills" or anything like that. Just because the stereotype exists does not mean I am promoting it.

Sorry if that is a sore point for you. But, making a point in the particular case is not the same as tarring all IT people. I do plenty to give push back against such stereotypes. * I generally prefer the company of IT people. I long have. It is part of why I spend so much time on HN. But I don't feel I need to follow some sort of extremist zero tolerance policy here.

* For example: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2017/08/communicatin...

Referring to a duck as a swan does not make it any less a duck.

I'll rewrite this comment:

"Users are idiots!"

Seems like an inappropriate contribution

The average user is a product of your UX and documentation. If it seems like all your users are idiots, then maybe the problem is you?

Inappropriate to whom? Pointing out that users are irrational is certainly relevant here. It’s difficult to see how exactly the implied condescension and arrogance here is inappropriate. Distracting? Sure. But this isn’t a self help forum, and you’re tossing the baby out with the bath water.

Is that how you excuse being a dick?

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines.

> How do you expect _any_ platform to work? Self-host everything?

That's kind of how the Internet was supposed to work. As it is, we've inverted it, and with that we've also inverted the ownership of data.

The fact that something not like what the Internet is "supposed to be" can be working is exactly why the Internet is powerful.

A broken clock is correct twice a day, too.

Proof by analogy is fraud. You should know better.

If you really want to go down this path -- a broken clock is correct twice, as two discrete points in a continuous time space. The act of looking at the clock is analogous to sampling one discrete point in the time space. The possibility of sampling those two points at any given time is zero.

So no, a broken clock is not correct twice a day. Also, please stop proving anything with analogy.

Finally got back to a real keyboard. I'm slightly aghast some of you feel we systems implementers (designers, developers, etc) need to be politically correct about the way we talk about users.

A person can be clever but people still do stupid things. I do not by any means truly think my users are mentally abnormal, really just that everybody —even those with specific, specialised counter-phishing training— succumb to really stupid things when we're manipulated in the right way.

As somebody developing systems, we really have to build defensively when users' wanton disregard for (eg) data security (manhandling customer databases, giving out their access to colleagues, clients, etc) conflicts with their employers, our and our regulators' data protection rules. So again, be offended if you like, but we're protecting our livelihoods.

In the context of this, Google could protect users against themselves and make the marketplace trustworthy.

Those are concerns for consumer software (like phone apps), but I'm not sure if these add-ons even work with regular GMail?

They seem to be part of "GSuite Marketplace," which is what businesses use, so presumably the domain admin would also have control over which apps can be installed.

Google says they no longer scan Gmail for advertising. I guess it depends on how much you trust them, but frankly one's emails are often pretty juicy by themselves, so if you're really worried you should probably not use it at all. I moved off it years ago.

Do they "no longer scan Gmail for advertising", or do they no longer scan Gmail?

I'm sure they scan it, otherwise it'd be hard to catch spam. I don't think they ever said they scanned it for any other reason.

They explicitly used to scan emails for advertising purposes:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-reading-personal-email...

Hence any other reason. Advertising was the reason already in discussion.

They'll have to scan it for search. And spam, as sibling comment mentions. And, really, to store and display it at all, depending on your definition of 'scan'.

My point being that "advertising" is a very limited use case. There's nothing necessarily stopping them from selling your scanned, very personal information to anyone.

Their privacy policy is very clear that they don't share personal information, with four exception, none of which include selling it. So, if you trust them, they don't.

"Scan" means they take the data out of the "email" silo and use it for purposes other than providing email services to the user (such as using it for advertising).

Searching is not "scanning". Nor is any other normal behavior of providing email services.

So the question at this point is does Google keep your email data silo'd or do they use it for other purposes?

> Searching is not "scanning"

Pray, how does it work, then?

Don't be pedantic. Defining "scanning" as "anything that looks at the bits on disk" makes the word meaningless in this context, because then yes, Google must absolutely "scan" it to provide basic functionality, and heck every service everywhere must "scan" their data to provide basic functionality. But that's not useful to talk about.

Clearly Google Now/Home uses gmail data to be relevant.

Ok, better question: Is Google using your email data for anything not explicitly authorized by and for the benefit of the user?

Have you explicitly authorized them to provide you search and mail-based information in Google Now?

No idea, I don't use Google Now. I hope so, but it wouldn't surprise me if Google "forgot" about that step. But at least that's for the benefit of the user.

According to my understanding of Google's privacy policy, your account data is essentially global by default, they don't need to explicitly ask you service by service where they can use it. IANAL, though.

That’s only a dream. Google also scans email snd combines the data with that of all the other users for spam filtering purposes, which is a big part of ‘email’.

It’s not difficult to put together creepy functionality and twist it so one of the purposes is providing email service.

Spam filtering is still in the email silo.

Well, their privacy policy prohibits that sort of thing. It also doesn't make a lot of business sense, as Google's biggest advantage is being able to target ads based on that data.

Before Add-ons, there was Gmail Labs (still exists), just as a note to bear in mind in this discussion.

These add ons are voluntary and you have to enable them. If someone is under the illusion that Google is better at privacy than anyone else they should re-educate themselves about that .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com