Slashdot Mirror

It just struck me that the main bone BoingBoing had to pick with MagicJack's EULA is that its users' calls are monitored, and are played targeted ads (obtained from said monitoring). How is this really much different from Google's adsense inside of gmail, where ads containing keywords found in your email's body are displayed next to your emails?

Not that I am supporting MagicJack or Google in anyway, but what really was the difference? Did it boil down to Google's better wording or selling of its adsense, or are we just more sensitive when it is done to audio/ voice as opposed to when it is done in text/ email?

The difference is that, as with Apple, people are wilfully blind to the serious privacy problems with using Google products. Arguably Gmail is worse because Google actually trawls and stores the content of your emails, not just the address of the recipient and sender. I had a look at the EULA a while ago - it's pretty bad.

Disclaimer - it may have changed since then.

..the google apps contract is fine. IAAL and i use google apps for all my stuff. i DO maintain a separate backup but everything goes on google. the bar is also fine with it.

IAAL (who isn't posting anonymously). The Google Apps contract is not fine. For example, Google expressly reserves the right to fuck with your data, and potentially to report you to the powers that be if they don't like what they find:

Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service.

Whatever soothing noises Google might make about the purpose of this, what matters is the words in the contract. The words in the contract are a problem.

Google's privacy policy should also set alarm bells ringing:

We may also use personal information for auditing, research and analysis to operate and improve Google technologies and services.

They also expressly state that they will share your data when 'complying with legal processes', which could include discovery:

We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services.

You are also reliant on Google's "good faith" interpretation of its own agreement:

We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public as required or permitted by law.

Finally, Google washes its hands of protecting your information:

Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.

Certainly the firm I work for would never in a million years put confidential client information of any kind on this system, nor would any of the serious firms we come up against.

The legal assignment of the right for Google to spy and report on you as they see fit.

Newsflash for Google fans: that stuff they're giving you isn't really 'free'...

And now to replace the word "Service"

7.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any of Google's products, software, services and web sites. For some of Google's products, software, services and web sites, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.

If that doesn't make it clear that Google only plans to filter Google services, I don't know what will.

Except that you're totally incorrect. Let's now replace the word Content (and replace "Services" again in that definition):

7.3 Google reserves the right ... to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of any of Google's products, software, services and web sites from any of Google's products, software, services and web sites.

The part in italics is critical. They are explicitly saying that it is not limited to Google's own content - it is anything you access using Google's "Services" which may be filtered. So long as you use Chrome to access it, they have the full range of rights they list (pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse, remove).

Chrome is a 'product' and 'software', and therefore a 'Service'. The whole of the WWW is something you 'have access to as part of, or through your use of' Chrome. Google reserves the right to filter, monitor etc etc your use OF THE WWW WHEN YOU USE CHROME.

I have tried to set this out in more detail here.

Why, oh why, are people so hell bent on trusting massive corporations to just "do the right thing" and have their customers' best interests at heart when the evidence to the contrary is put in front of their faces over and over and over again?

Link.

They were supposed to fly into Japanese cities and sleep in the eaves of houses before exploding and burning the place down. It worked quite well - to the extent that the bats managed to destroy most of the R&D facility. The success of the Manhattan Project ultimately ended the experiment... or did it?

Another chapter in the ridiculous history of 20th century warfare was the development of bat-mounted bombs for use against the Japanese - read all about it.

The interesting thing is that they were actually looking to be reasonably effective - so much so that they destroyed the testing facility. Unfortunately for the Japanese and the program, the atomic bomb was perfected before frozen bats could be deployed for use in warfare.

There is no limit to the insane plans the world's armed forces will try.

...for people who ARE convicted, how about storing it for a period of time similar to a parole period?

I.e. instead of the current sentencing structure where there is a head sentence with eligibility for parole after a certain period, which lasts for the remainder of the head sentence, why not allow judges to also sentence someone to a period for which their DNA will be kept on file?

"I sentence you to 10 years imprisonment, with a 6 year non-parole period and a 4 year DNA retention period following the expiry of your sentence."

This would be consistent with the notion that a person pays the price for their actions, but that the penalty is proportionate to the crime.

I wrote a longer piece about it, and other recent developments regarding the UK's DNA database, here, with links to some further reading.