Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft: the 'Scroogled' Show Must Go On
theodp writes "Microsoft says that the death of its 'Scroogled' ad campaign against Google has been greatly exaggerated. 'Scroogled will go on as long as Google keeps Scroogling people,' said a Microsoft spokesperson. 'Nearly 115,000 people signed a petition asking Google to stop going through their Gmail.' So, is Microsoft's scare campaign justified? Well, in a recently-published patent application for a Method and System for Dynamic Textual Ad Distribution Via Email, Google explains how its invention can be used to milk more money from advertisers by identifying lactating Moms, which might make some uneasy. Google also illustrates how advertisers can bid on access to those suffering from breast cancer, bi-polar disorder, depression, and panic anxiety. Hey, what could possibly go wrong?"
How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did.
All in all, that technology isn't all that surprising to me....
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
That cannot be obtained from your doctor, and Google is going to sell it???!!!!!
This is not going to end well.
We all thought Big Brother was the Govn't, it's looking like Google is who we have to watch out for.
Rick B.
You may not consider it "wrong", but many people aren't as happy as you are to have large multinational corporations rummaging through their underwear.
Those two patent drawings are plenty scary.
This reminds me of the late '80s, when people still identified IBM and AT&T as the big bad boys and were willing to give Microsoft (which seemed like a scrappy startup led by a shy kid with thick glasses and long hair) a pass.
Fast forward 25 years. Microsoft is the new IBM. Oracle is the new DEC. Google, Apple, and Amazon are the new Microsoft.
Is Microsoft working under the theory that (since they have other profitable areas of business, and Google basically doesn't) it will be wholly worth it if the can salt the earth under both Google and their own advertising efforts?
Or are they making the best of a bad situation by advertising the inferiority of their analytics capabilities as a privacy feature?
Or are they simply hoping that mutually applicable accusations will stick to whoever they are made against first?
And Microsoft isn't doing the same?
I'm all for informing people on what information they give to companies, and how those companies will use it. But at least don't be hypocritical about it.
Also, a huge part of the world doesn't care, as is obvious by their Facebook and Twitter activity.
I don't know why people even believe in this shit. What, you are all seriously so naive as to think Microsoft is not doing the very same thing? That's the whole fucking reason they offer a mail service, for crying out loud! There is no money in it for them at all unless they extract information that can be monetized. If you want a usable enough service, there can't be nearly enough ads there to pay for it. Google and MS are doing the same, they just use a common tactic of pretending like they are very different. Large-scale free mail hosting is a financial loss unless you mine the data. The data doesn't even necessarily need to be sold to third parties, there are other groups within Google and Microsoft that use it. Just think of how big of a language corpus it gives both companies to develop their other tools on. Imagine you're a search engine or a translation service startup. You're at a big disadvantage to both MS and Google precisely because you don't have billions of sentences of text as your reference.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
If I was an advertiser and saw the Sgroogled campaign - the message to me is that Google has a better advertiser platform.
Nearly 115,000 people signed a petition asking Google to stop going through their Gmail
So why the hell do they use Gmail? Here's a clue for them - use a proper email client.
See also Scroogled by Cory Doctorow (translations)
Wow, Microsoft appropriating the name of someone else's pre-existing work in a particular domain, particularly when that domain is the criticism and commentary on a near-monopolist, and the original author is one of the most vocal and prominent proponents of copyright and other IP-related reform. I think my irony meter just exploded.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
A Microsoft sponsored petition had 115,000 signatures! That's probably more people than are using Windows 8.
Of course, we should double check and make sure all of those signatures belong to actual living people, and not dead people. MS has a history of fake grass roots campaigns involving dead people. You should all listen to your international corporate overlords and be outraged at being scroogled, but ignore the fact that Microsoft reserves the right to examine all of the data on your sky drive.
It shouldn't suprise us that Microsoft products are so popular among the dead. After all, Balmer is one of the most brain-dead CEO's in the tech world. They used to be such a scrappy competitive company. Then the 1990's happened.
So, Google can scan through emails anonymously and target ads based on that. Nothing new here at all. There is no tie to the actual account when it does this, and nobody is "reading my email". If, however, I'm not OK with algorithms parsing the email, I can just stop using the free service. Simple. And pointing to a settlement where Google paid out because it allowed Canadian pharmacy ads that were against US federal law has NOTHING to do with whether or not they are looking at your email.
This is just fear mongering, much like the Scroogled campaign is to begin with. There are 425 million gmail users according to wikipedia. Having 115,000 complaints is such a small percentage of their user base that it's not really worth talking about. 0.025% Bottom line is that it's an ad-supported platform, and they provide targeted ads that are more relevant. That may be beyond the comprehension of some users and it might make them feel that somehow the whole Scroogled FUD is real, in which case they can opt to use another service.
If you want to have more privacy, pay for your email account and services or host them yourself. I use my own email server so no scroogling.
In a free market, Google is allowed to use their customer's personal information in any way they see fit, and the magical hand of the free market will punish Google if they do something wrong. So if Google finds out by reading your Gmail that you are cheating on your partner, and they extort money from you, that is just free market capitalism at work -- nothing wrong with that. By the same token, Microsoft is allowed, by the free market, to characterize Google in any way they see fit. After all, these are big corporations. The free market dictates that they can do anything they like, and so can their customers. Everybody is free, the market is free, and in the end the world is perfect and everyone is rich and happy.
Microsoft likes to brag that 115,000 people signed the petition (if we are to believe Microsoft). They also like to brag that 3.5 million people visited the site.
So that means the only 0.3% percent of the site visitors found Microsoft's argument compelling.
Does anyone really believe that Microsoft isn't selling free customer information in a similar way ?
I bet you a dime to a donut they are.
and after typing that last line I got a Dunkin Donuts add in Microsoft Bing how amazing.
Silence is a state of mime.
Wait, you didn't read ToS, didn't know it's not a confidential method of communication, and it's someone else's fault?
What's next, sending "@my_doctor woot my gonorrhea got better" tweet and then suing Twitter because you thought @ makes a private message?
I personally love the fact that Google targets useful ads to me based on my email conversations. It is like having a personal concierge catering to my every whim!
Any lawyer, doctor, or otherwise professional dealing with confidential information should use a private email service. They should also advise clients to do the same. Failure of the client to do so is thier fault. And snail mail options do still exist.
Silence is a state of mime.
"First they ignore you..."
Koans and fables for the software engineer
How is this different from a drug company approaching a doctor and saying 'Hey, I have this medication that can help people undergoing cancer treatment with their nausea.' Then the doctor, who has the personal information of his/her patients, makes targeted suggestions. Do you think the doctor recommends that medication to people with strep throat? Probably not. It's targeted. The drug company is not given any personal information.
Of course - there is a difference - the doctors are not allowed to accept money from the drug companies. The reason for that is because you want the medical advice given by your medical professionals to be unbiased and not slanted by money paid to them by drug companies, because you need to be able to trust that your doctor has your best interests at heart.
Neither Google nor Microsoft have any such relationship with their clients. People do not expect Google's advertisements or Microsoft's advertisements to be sound medical advice. The relationship is pretty transparent and I'm pretty sure everybody knows at least vaguely how those ads got there. But the same situation applies - Google is not passing personal information along to drug companies - they are merely pushing the ads out to those clients that meet certain criteria. Google's advertisers are not being given the personal information.
My problem with the Scroogled ad campaign is that they make it sound like there's an actual person at Google who is reading people's e-mails, taking notes about them, and then telling advertisers this information. "We'll put your add for hemorrhoid cream on Thomas Smith's screen. He recently e-mailed his brother, Reginald Smith, mentioning about pain he experienced while sitting down. Just to cover all bases, we'll also put your lower back balm ad there too."
Instead, Google's computers build up a profile about the person based on the content of their e-mail. When advertisers buy ads on keywords, those ads are targeted based on the user's profile. There's no human reading the e-mail and the advertisers don't know whose specific screen their ads are appearing on.
Microsoft is exaggerating the situation and inferring that it is worse than it actually is in order to scare people away from Google. (While likely doing the exact same thing that Google is doing.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I still trust Google way more than I trust Microsoft.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Since Google admitted they do that, Microsoft is pointing at that and saying how Google is bad for it. What Microsoft isn't telling anyone is that they are doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING (well, may not exactly, but darn near close to it), but isn't telling you they are. Thus, their results are "better" because they are sneaky about it.
Whether or not Microsoft is making a legitimate point is irrelevant. This is clearly a marketing campaign and will be perceived as much. From the perspective of the vast majority of consumers Microsoft is no different than Google. Potentially worse, in fact, because of Microsoft's history. We can get into a whole debate about whether or not some of that perception is deserved, but this too is irrelevant. So in the eyes of most Microsoft is likely engaging in similar activities, regardless of what the reality may be.
There is another problem here, however. Either Microsoft's management, their marketing department or their advertising agency seems intent on portraying the company as hip. From the dancing Surface commercials, to the Windows Phone celebrity spots, to this dorky Scroogled campaign it all feels tacky and reeks of trying way too hard. They're trying to turn their brand into the kind of lifestyle brand that people perceive as cool and desirable. The problem is that it can't be forced. That and it's been shown that consumers don't respond well to attack ads.
The irony to all these stupid campaigns is that your average consumer still isn't fully aware of what Microsoft has to offer. So instead of focusing on the basics, the stuff that could actually motivate consumers, they're wasting time and money on nonsense. Whoever is in charge of marketing at Microsoft is not only seriously overpaid but probably should be fired.
Do you even know what they said went wrong? Basically the government doesn't want Canadian pharmacies selling in the US in the name of "consumer protection". I sure hope it's worth it, because that protection makes us pay out the ass for drugs since there's no competition.
You can thank government regulation for why we pay higher prices on drugs. Yeah, "big pharma" can lobby for it, bit ultimately it is people like you and I who vote for the politicians that tell the police to enforce it. When libertarians like myself rail against regulation, this is exactly what we're talking about.
Is it possible that buying abroad can result in getting tainted drugs with heavy metals or other contaminants? Absolutely. However I can take it upon myself to determine who I will buy from that I know will avoid these problems while saving money in the process.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
People with consistently high ratings get to see articles ahead of everybody else sometimes. I see a few a week, they're in red and you generally get about 15 minutes before it goes live to everybody else.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
As long as the individual information is not shared with anyone.
Uncle Scrooge is a character in Dicken's "Christmas Tale", who is a wealthy man and does not spend any cent in the beginning until his nightmare comes up. So what is the nightmare of M$ ? no need to be explained - simply a system like Linux or Unix. An OS which can exist without to be purchased or licensed. When there is a cyber-war in Europe with the endeffect of a war between Boeing and EADS, who is wanting to make ca$h in reality ?! Linux/Unix or M$ ?
two corporate giants going at each other and not a word about Apple, ah fresh news.
Straw man. Despite MS's claims, "someone" at Google is not reading your email. If you had said: "So, if you have a physical mail, and an algorithm generates ads from the content to help support the Post Office, and it's completely anonymous to the advertisers, it would be fine?", you might have a valid argument.
And I disagree with other posters that email doesn't have an expectation of privacy, though that doesn't mean it is private, unless you have strong end-to-end encryption.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
It's a bug, whether that's admitted to or not. Articles from the mysterious future are supposed to be visible to paid subscribers only. Turns out, though, this varnish shit is kinda tough.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Google explains how its invention can be used to milk more money from advertisers by identifying lactating Moms
Imagine the effort they went to, going through the whole patent submission process just to get that line in a /. summary
Private email services are not secure either. If you want security, encrypt.
Hypothetically speaking, Google probably could let an individual read your personal information. But these targeted ads essentially just issue ads to gmail accounts which fit a specific set of criteria, which is entirely machine automated. If /. wants to see which users use the letter "a" the most, they would just have an algorithm which inspects each user's post in search for a's. It would be absolutely silly to think that this is violating our privacy *until* a person goes and reads the results. But Google employee's aren't supposed to be doing that. If they decide to though, all the machine automation or not it won't stop them, because your info is already on their servers. If an MS employee wants to snoop on you, their lack (or presence) of aggregate info will not change a damn thing.
In otherwords, a machine is reading your email, not a person. And a person can read your email whether or not a machine is scanning your crap.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Attacking your opponent, preemptively, where you are week is a fairly common tactic in political campaigns, especially for candidates that don't have a clear positive message to sell. It associates a negative which you might be vulnerable to with your opponent in the public eye, and makes it look (at least, for people who don't spend the effort to dig for the substance, but that's most of the public) like they are just engaging in "me too" attacks if they do point out your weakness.
It is probably not even a little bit coincidental that the "Scroogled" campaign coincided with Microsoft bringing long-time political consultant/campaign manager Mark Penn onboard as an executive.
Yet they can't fix an expired ssl cert? http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/05/0143218/microsoft-azure-failure-ssl-certificates-were-updated-sort-of or as they say "breakdown in our procedures for maintaining and monitoring these certificates was the root cause" aka your data is safer with Google.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I don't like ANY company data mining my emails or searches or documents and then using that to bombard me with ads. In this particular case, I'm not sure what's worse: being Scroogled, or using the alternative -- Bing. From the ad, it seems like using google will lead you to end up with a kitchen fire. But if Bing's results are scraped from google (see link below), then I don't see how the alternative is any better. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google-search.html
Paid subscribers can opt out to have the asterisk shown... Just saying... However, believe it or not, this time I was just lucky. It was just published when I loaded the page. I have a very associative memory. Depending on when a certain topic comes up, related things pop up in my head. It's a curse. However, a google (to get the link: keywords used "wallmart pregnant father"... You see, I even had the shopping chain wrong, but Google corrected me), three cut 'n pastes (the comment from the summary, the link and the title of the linked article) and a small comment of myself... Not much more than 30 seconds of work.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Hmmm, interesting.... Apparently, you can't hide the asterisk. I was convinced you could. Perhaps it changed in the past. Oh, well...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Gretchen: That is so fetch!
Regina: Gretchen, stop trying to make "fetch" happen! It's not going to happen!
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Nope, some paid features are available free to high rated users, like a little tick box to turn off the adverts for example.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
So what you're saying is that modern communications has to be replaced with saddles and buggy whips because email providers are so untrustworthy. The privacy invasions these companies routinely commit has rendered the medium unusable for anything important.
Liberty in your lifetime
Meanwhile MS is preparing to launch the most in-depth consumer profiling operation in history. Just wait for Xbox 720 - then you'll see a whole new level of targeted advertising.
Just this infinitely recurring zero floats into view.
Here is Microsoft's statement:
Outlook.com only scans the contents of your email to help protect you and display, categorize, and sort your mail appropriately. Just like the postal service sorts and scans mail and packages for dangerous explosives and biohazards, Outlook.com scans your mail to help prevent spam, gray mail, phishing scams, viruses, malware, and other dangers and annoyances. Microsoft and its email services, including Outlook.com, Hotmail, and Office 365, do not use the content of customers’ private emails, communications, or documents to target advertising.
http://www.scroogled.com/OurPosition
Please stop spreading misleading FUD for karma. Your post getting to +4 informative is what's wrong with Slashdot.
No, I am saying pay for a secure service or suffer the consequences.
Cheap, fast, private: choose two.
Silence is a state of mime.
And presumably, you buy from Canada because they do have government regulations to guarantee the safety fo the drugs you buy there. So you like some regulations and not others. Better focusing your efforts on keeping regulations meaningful and in the best interests of the American people rather than just trying to hobble the government in the name of liberty. Because, otherwise, liberty American style amounts to freedom of corporations to rip you off. And if those corporations want the government to spend a lot on what they produce, the spending will go on anyway.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
The need for regulations to keep the prices low are because of regulations which allow the prices to go high. So now you have two layers of regulation and all the regulators, offices, janitors, managers, HR staff, security guards, personal assistants, middle managers, enforcement officers and so on that that implies. Remember, tax day is April 15th in the US.
I gave them up for %95 of my email after they started reading our email.
I like to keep my received emails on my local machine, and I don't like to use MS Outlook. So, if I want free email hosting, I generally use Gmail because it works with POP. If my correspondents and I aren't using something like Enigmail, then it would be foolish for me to expect that it isn't being read somewhere along the route, regardless of who provides my email address. However, I am paying for email hosting, and, considering the comparative price of groceries, I don't expect the $5/mo I'm paying (my former local ISP) to become onerous anytime soon.
No, I'm thinking more along the lines of mexico. Even canadians go to mexico.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
So, Google reads my e-mails and sends me ads that I usually ignore based on that.
Am I upset? NO, because Google still WORKS.
Microsoft is just upset that they didn't do it first. Same with the Browser. Same with the Internet. Same with computer networking in general. Ditto pad computing.
And cell phones.
Gaming consoles; although, I must admit, I LIKE X-Box, but they DIDN'T THINK OF IT BEFORE SOMEBODY ELSE MADE A BUCKET OF MONEY OFF OF IT.
Microsoft is accusing Google of doing the exact same thing it is doing, only they are taking a pause to pimp their own product that does exactly the same evil that Google does.
The only difference is that Bing is absolute crap compared to Google. Of course, they don't want that fact to come out in the wash.... Can I switch to Apple now?
the spokesman continued: "... We know that the campaign is not accurate, elegant or innovative, that it's not what customers want, that it is more expensive and less effective than other advertising campaigns, and it's the same commercial we've been doing for 25 years but it's what we do. We're negotiating a deal with TV manufacturers to force them to pay us a licensing fee for every commercial that they show in exchange for access to our commercial - 'cause the courts haven't forced us not to yet and, hey what other choices do customers have? You're not just gonna watch TV on the Internet - that is proven to turn you into a pedophile [link to white paper by The Microsoft Center for Unbiased Whitepapers], and in the long run you have to watch more commercials."
The spokesman later clarified: "115,000 people have signed a petition against Google - and that's in Bangalore ALONE. We're confident that more will be signing it from Mexico starting in October of this year, and Singapore in 2014"