Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Patents "Scroogling"

Posted by samzenpus on from the check-out-these-offers dept.

theodp writes "In Microsoft's eyes, the idea of scanning Gmail so advertisers can bid on access to those suffering from breast cancer, bi-polar disorder, depression, and panic anxiety, deserves no kudos. The USPTO, on the other hand, feels it deserves a patent. GeekWire reports that Google has been awarded a patent on "Scroogling", aka its system and method for targeting information based on message content in a reply. Google takes some jabs at Microsoft in the diagrams accompanying the patent, including one implying that MS-Access and Excel files pose security risks, and another that suggests alternatives to Access."

30 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. I miss Scroogle :( by tapspace · · Score: 4, Informative

    I miss Scroogle, even if the guy behind it was a little crazy. Hell, I'm a little crazy! Startpage just isn't the same (although, I generally use DuckDuckGo, and I encourage everyone to do so).

    1. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Both Google and the USPTO are officially insane. Can anyone see where the patent wildly crosses the the line? Whilst the GMail user has agreed to have the privacy reamed the other person or persons at the end of the email or those who replay to a GMail address have not, thus an extreme invasion of privacy. This would be akin to the patents office granting the US postal service a patent for the ability to scan and read al mail that passes through it's service on the claim that buying a stamp means you agreed to all the terms and conditions of service of the US postal service.

      There is always another party to that email, so at which point does the sender own the rights to privacy and at which point does the receiver take over that right or can it be legally implied that both own the right to that privacy and both must agreed to have it reamed prior to any company being allowed to do it.

      Especially consider this on the reply, fuck Google, just because I send an email to a GMail address does absolutely not mean, I gave them the right to have my privacy reamed by the to their greedy and perverted little heart's content.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by jrumney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Patents are, and should be, about technical issues only, legality and ethics does not enter into the decision over whether something is patentable.

    3. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Both Google and the USPTO are officially insane. Can anyone see where the patent wildly crosses the the line? Whilst the GMail user has agreed to have the privacy reamed the other person or persons at the end of the email or those who replay to a GMail address have not, thus an extreme invasion of privacy. This would be akin to the patents office granting the US postal service a patent for the ability to scan and read al mail that passes through it's service on the claim that buying a stamp means you agreed to all the terms and conditions of service of the US postal service.

      There is always another party to that email, so at which point does the sender own the rights to privacy and at which point does the receiver take over that right or can it be legally implied that both own the right to that privacy and both must agreed to have it reamed prior to any company being allowed to do it.

      Especially consider this on the reply, fuck Google, just because I send an email to a GMail address does absolutely not mean, I gave them the right to have my privacy reamed by the to their greedy and perverted little heart's content.

      Technically, email is like sending postcards - it's complete;y open for anyone to read. (Although few do because who has the time to really read every single postcard sent through the mail? The NSA, perhaps).

      Email has no technical privacy - it never has. Even in the beginning it was typically available to anyone who had access to the system it's on (back when people logged onto a shell account to retrieve their mail, sysadmins would have free reign over the entire firesystem).

      If you wanted privacy, use encryption - it's one of the initial uses of PGP - for encrypting email!

      And you're technically correct - in fact there's a class action over this by non-Google users finding that they're being profiled and tracked because they interact with GMail users and even worse, they aren't covered by any of Google's privacy policies because they never agreed to them.

    4. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by tapspace · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you wanted privacy, use encryption - it's one of the initial uses of PGP - for encrypting email!

      Heh, if only the gubmint would let anyone open an unmolested secure email service.

    5. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Patents are, and should be, about technical issues only

      Well, I'd have to say this fails on those merits as well. I fail to see how "show an advertisement based on message content" is either inventive or non-obvious to an expert in the field.

      Oh, but they have a "computing device" and a "cloud". APPROVED.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    6. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Out of curiosity, what is your position on the non-advertising content suggestions mentioned in the patent? For example, if someone e-mails an address to a Gmail user, does it constitute reaming of the sender's privacy for Google's systems to recognize that it's an address and to offer the user a map?

      What about other sorts of automated analysis not mentioned in the patent? For example, content analysis for automatic classification, such as the priority inbox feature which sorts e-mail into "important" and "everything else" categories, or the new inbox that optionally sorts e-mail into "primary", "social", "promotions", "updates" and "forums" categories, presented on different tabs. Is that reaming of the sender's privacy, too? The content analysis seems like it would be quite similar in procedure, just a different application. Probably a bit more personalized than the advertising analysis, actually.

      While I'm at it, what about automated content analysis for spam filtering and virus detection? Is that also privacy reaming?

      I'm curious where you draw the line, and on what basis. Personally, I don't see any sort of automated analysis whose results are presented only to the recipient of the e-mail as a breach of privacy of the sender, who sent the information to the recipient. I draw the line based on who sees the information, both original and the results of the analysis, and especially on what information made available to third parties can be tied to the people/accounts from which it originated or to which it is related. On that basis, I don't see any privacy issues with Gmail.

      But others see things differently, so I'd like to understand what your criteria are.

      (Disclaimer: I work for Google, though the above represents only my personal opinion, not any sort of company policy statement. For that matter, I held the same opinion before I began working for Google, so I can safely say that my employment has not altered it.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

      Things are looking up for my Automated Prisoner to Burger Converter.

    8. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      when they analyze your data so that they can sell you to advertisers

      I think the wording of this statement is misleading. It implies that some information about you is being sent to advertisers, which is not the case.

      their method is to build a profile of you based on your communications that they can sell to advertisers

      And again, this is not the case. Google doesn't sell user profiles to advertisers.

      this is not simply some filtering system like a spam filter, it is a system to catalog every bit of information about you to be able to understand who you are, what you do, where you go, what interests you have and who you communicate with so they can show you more effective advertising.

      I changed the bolded words in your statement, to make it more accurate. Yes, Google's intent is to understand you in some depth, in order to both provide you with better services, and to show you advertising that is relevant to your interests.

      Of course, if you don't want targeted advertising from Google, you're free to opt out, even while still receiving the free services.

      Does this corrected understanding of what Google does and doesn't do change anything for you? Based on the line that I described in my previous post (GP to this one), it makes all the difference to me. If that's not where you draw the line, I pose the same question to you that I posed to rtb61: Where do you draw the line? Is analysis for the purpose of targeted advertising different from analysis for spam filtering or automatic categorization, and, if so, why? Is it just a distaste for advertising driving your attitude, or is there actually some privacy consideration that I'm missing?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by swillden · · Score: 2

      Oh, one more comment: I should also mention in the interest of full disclosure that I find targeted advertising to be a good thing. I don't particularly like ads, and I'd rather not see them at all, but given that advertising is the model that pays for pretty much all of the web content I enjoy, since I have to see ads I'd much rather see ads about things that actually interest me.

      This was driven home a couple of days ago when I was semi-forced to watch TV for a few hours, during the afternoon. One particular sequence of commercials contained (1) an ad for a legal firm specializing in getting social security disability benefits for people, (2) an ad for catheters, with women gushing about how compact and easy to carry and insert they were and (3) an ad for some medication for some gynecological disorder, prompted me to turn to my colleague who was sitting nearby and point out that I really like targeted advertising. That sequence was just the final straw, too, after many other ads that I found not just uninteresting but distasteful.

      Show me ads for hiking shoes, bicycle gear, boats, guns, gadgets, etc. -- stuff that I might actually want to know about and may even want to buy, thank you very much.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If your definition of "read" includes "being processed by a computer" then any email server that accepts an email from you must necessarily read your email. If your definition of "read" does not include "being processed by a computer", then Google is in fact not reading your email. Either way, you are completely misunderstanding what this story is about and what the privacy implications are.

      In other words: name even a single way in which your privacy is being violated by there being relevant ads in your GMail or in someone else's GMail? The Google data center that decided which ad to show you already has your email, so Google is not getting any additional information from you when it selects or shows this ad to you. Advertisers don't get to see your email and they don't get to know who you are, so there is no information being leaked about you to third parties.

      You might not like Google having your email in the first place when you send email to someone on GMail, but that is how email works. If you send an email to a server, that server has your email. That's what email is! In any case, since you aren't being shown ads when yous end email to GMail users, that concern would have absolutely nothing to do with being shown ads on GMail, which is what this Slashdot story is about.

      What the hell is the problem?

    11. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      Whilst the GMail user has agreed to have the privacy reamed the other person or persons at the end of the email or those who replay to a GMail address have not, thus an extreme invasion of privacy.

      If you send an email to gmail.com, gmail.com can read it. Is this really a big surprise in a technical forum? In fact, gmail.com must be able to read the email in order to deliver it to the right mailbox. It must be able to read the body of the email if you want it to perform spam detection. It's the same for pretty much every domain, as almost everyone uses some form of spam detection.

      Only the naive or the wilfully ignorant could claim that they didn't expect Google to be able to read emails sent to their servers (or Microsoft/Hotmail, Yahoo, etc)

      so at which point does the sender own the rights to privacy

      Until they voluntarily transmit it onto another computer system.

      Especially consider this on the reply, fuck Google, just because I send an email to a GMail address does absolutely not mean, I gave them the right to have my privacy reamed by the to their greedy and perverted little heart's content.

      Yes, yes it does. If you don't sending your emails to Google, don't send your emails to Google. If you want to use their services (including communicating with their account holders), you abide by their conditions.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    12. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Meh I use Bing, I figure if somebody is gonna make money off my searches the least they can do is give me a slice and all those $5 Amazon gift cards are great for picking up the little adapters and odds and ends i'm always needing round the shop. Plus I like their image search better than Google.

      As for TFA this just shows that the USPTO has basically become a rubber stamp for the corps, frankly the whole copyrights and patents system need to be tossed out and overhauled, all it does now is make rich old white guys ever richer while making minefields for everybody else.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    13. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by Antonovich · · Score: 2

      Get over it dude. If people, other than privacy nerds, were remotely concerned about this then we'd get Yahoo/MS/etc. promoting some sort of auto-reply system that sent back a "Sorry, the email service you have sent this email from scans replies for advertising purposes and, as such, is a danger to my privacy. Please send this email from an email service that does not scan my emails and I will reply to your message". Almost all email services, free or not, probably provide for this very easily. Then Gmail would then be faced with some hard choices... or maybe they wouldn't because no one cares. That's the problem here - almost no one who is not on /. cares. What is stopping you from doing this again and starting the movement?

      NOTHING is forcing you to use Gmail, either to send from or to. There are literally thousands of free email providers and it is NOTHING like the postal service in that way.

    14. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      As one of the probably-millions of people who buys google advertising, I'd love to know where I can find this supposed trove of personal profiles to target. It'd make my adwords a lot more effective than all this blind keyword bidding.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    15. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by 21mhz · · Score: 2

      That's funny, but PGP was designed with the assumption that communications and email storage can easily be snooped on. It's an end-to-end scheme, and so is S/MIME. The security of both is as good as the encryption algorithm and your and your peers' procedures for key management and exchange.

      If a government (to me, the U.S. government agencies are agents of a foreign state) wants the contents, they need to go after you, rather than installing blanket wiretaps at your service providers and silencing their staff with a secret gag order.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    16. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by jimshatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, so you like interest-based ads. I can see that, I really can. What I'm afraid of, though, is that you with your interest and I with mine get presented a different internet. Google probably sorts your search results differently than mine, so you'll visit different sites than I do, even though our search terms are the same.
      Maybe this isn't a big deal. Your perception of the world is different than mine, so why wouldn't you visit a different internet than I do? But where do you draw the line? (right back at ya :) )
      Also, my interests are shaped based on what I see and read on the internet (as well as IRL of course), but if only pages/search results based on my current interests are ever presented, can I ever widen my horizon? I'm not a static set of properties.

      Okay, so it probably isn't this bad yet, but I'm a little worried about where this is going.
      Thanks in any case for your view on this.

    17. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      I fail to see how "show an advertisement based on message content" is either inventive or non-obvious to an expert in the field.

      Apparently you've not studied quantum mechanics. Some interpretation of quantum mechanics state that everything that can happen does. So, much like we have the EM field and Higgs field, etc. and interactions between them make up reality, there is an infinite number of Universes that could have emerged from the big bang with all sorts of different parameters for all sorts of fields. It's widely known that the standard model is a very good approximation, but still a bit incomplete.

      Much like there are effects that are visible in the quantum level but not so much at the macro scale, there are other effects that could be near impossible to detect through quantum physics, and rely on macroscopic observations. We're witnessing such an effect. It's widely known that some particles interact only very weakly with the other fields. You and I are like neutrinos, but many experts -- especially those of the PTO -- are highly influenced by the reality distortion field.

    18. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by donaldm · · Score: 2

      Email has no technical privacy - it never has. Even in the beginning it was typically available to anyone who had access to the system it's on (back when people logged onto a shell account to retrieve their mail, sysadmins would have free reign over the entire firesystem).

      System Admins still have full access to all file-systems under their control so you have to hope that they have enough integrity not to abuse their privilege. it is possible for a rogue System Admin to write filters to extract compromising email however if they are caught doing this then they can face a prison sentence and/or a hefty fine.

      Actually pretty much all outgoing and incoming business or corporate email is actually read by virus protection software no matter if the mail server runs a Microsoft, Unix or Linux OS. The exception would be pass through mail although some companies like their virus protection software to vet this as well which can actually land the over enthusiastic company in hot water since this can be construed as reading and possibly blocking mail not destined for the said companies mail server(s).

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    19. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      I don't see any sort of automated analysis whose results are presented only to the recipient of the e-mail as a breach of privacy of the sender, who sent the information to the recipient.

      But the information is also shared with the NSA and law enforcement agencies. We know that already. It could (and likely will) be used for proactive punishment of thought crimes.

      Moreover, what you call "content analysis" is also a technical term from the intersection of corpus linguistics and psychology. Just by analysing text you can obtain a complete and fairly accurate personality profile of a person. Try out for example LIWC and see for yourself.

      It's not harmless technology by any measure, it's a pretty big deal.

    20. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by JAlexoi · · Score: 2

      Yes... Which are male, single, under 30 interested in cars.
      Please note, that private information is only the information that can personally identify you. Unless you happen to live in a country/city that has you are the only person fitting that profile, you have no basis to claim that your private information is sold.

    21. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 2

      Patents have nothing to do with morality or otherwise. Personally I would rather Google have this patent, then say, some patent troll company that will sell the patent to the highest bidder, say, some Chinese state run company.

      Also I can't stand how much FUD is said about Gmail and its lack of "privacy". No HUMAN has ever read your email, ever, it doesn't happen. Google uses cold impersonal computers and algorithms to quickly scan text for keywords and then suggests ads that are relevant because they have found that if you are emailing a buddy about a new car, you might be more interested in ads about cars rather than ads about viagra.

      Everybody knows the deal with Gmail, and anybody who responds to a Gmail user knows the deal. People do not have to respond to any email they don't want to.

      Also to assume that no other online service is scanning your emails is juvenile and naive, and their motives are far more an affront to privacy than simply deciding what ad to display as you enjoy a free service. If you want to be private, get off the fucking web!

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    22. Re:I miss Scroogle :( by faffod · · Score: 2

      How about a compromise (that should get both sides to down vote me to oblivion...) Patent law should be about technical merits. Tort law covers ethics. It is ok to own a patent on "insert some horrible and amoral process here", but it is illegal to use it. This is the legal equivalent to breaking a function into two separate functions, each one serves a purpose and is not overly obfuscated. We just have to remember to call both functions.

  2. The pages referenced in the summary by loosescrews · · Score: 4, Informative

    The one implying that MS-Access and Excel files pose security risks: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/23/218/085/18.pdf

    The one that suggests alternatives to Access: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/23/218/085/19.pdf

    1. Re:The pages referenced in the summary by jerquiaga · · Score: 2

      Those show nothing of the sort. Wish someone would actually read the materials before writing the summary.

    2. Re:The pages referenced in the summary by swillden · · Score: 2

      Those show nothing of the sort. Wish someone would actually read the materials before writing the summary.

      Well, the second image does show ads for Filemaker and Peoplesoft, sandwiched between ads for help with learning or using Access. The Filemaker ad specifically positions it as an alternative to Access, and it can be assumed that the Peoplesoft ad is also offering an alternative, though I don't really see Access and Peoplesoft as competitors.

      The first image is an example e-mail that actually suggests that Excel and Access files are so valuable to the business that they should be protected from loss by getting them backed up to a network drive, with no implication that the files pose security risks, so the summary's characterization of that is completely off-base.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Patent novelty? by chrismcb · · Score: 2

    How is this remotely patentable? It is just taking some content, and presenting an ad based on the content (and keywords in the content). What does it mater that the content is a reply vs a web page vs anything else?
    Ohhh "determining reply content associated with the reply" If only three was some standard way to determine the content of an email. What is novel about this? Once you have a system to provide an ad based on keywords, what does it matter if you pull keywords from a reply, or from something else?

  4. So... by Doh! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It has come to this.

  5. so, is Google's CFO the Chief Ferengi Officer? by Fubari · · Score: 3, Interesting
    True... both google & patent office are amoral if anything, but certainly not insane - this will be quite profitable for google.
    From a non-patent point of view, this email thing seriously creeps me out.
    I wonder if the Google CFO's business card says "Chief Ferengi Officer".
    *shrug* That is probably true for any large company.

    So anyway... now that lavabit is gone, what is a good way to go for private email ?

    Patents are, and should be, about technical issues only, legality and ethics does not enter into the decision over whether something is patentable.

  6. Re:I want to switch by Aryden · · Score: 2

    wont matter, any email you send into the US can be searched, cataloged and perused.