Are You OK With Google Reading Your Data? (infoworld.com)

Remember when Google randomly flagged files in Google Docs for violating its terms of service? An anonymous reader quotes InfoWorld: Many people worried that Google was scanning users' documents in real time to determine if they're being mean or somehow bad. You actually agree to such oversight in Google G Suite's terms of service. Those terms include personal conduct stipulations and copyright protection, as well as adhering to "program policies"... Even though this is spelled out in the terms of service, it's uncomfortably Big Brother-ish, and raises anew questions about how confidential and secure corporate information really is in the cloud.

So, do SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS providers make it their business to go through your data? If you read their privacy policies (as I have), the good news is that most don't seem to. But have you actually read through them to know who, like Google, does have the right to scan and act on your data? Most enterprises do a good legal review for enterprise-level agreements, but much of the use of cloud services is by individuals or departments who don't get such IT or legal review. Enterprises need to be proactive about reading the terms of service for cloud services used in their company, including those set up directly by individuals and departments. It's still your data, after all, and you should know how it is being used and could be used...
The article argues that "Chances are you or your employees have signed similar terms in the many agreements that people accept without reading."

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Source: Ian Betteridge

Sure

[nospam007]

For my secrets and crimes, I use encryption.

Re:Sure

[lucaiaco]

For my secrets and crimes, I use encryption.

For everything else ...

Re:Sure

[Aighearach]

Yeah, plus, if it was my data they wouldn't even let it onto their network!

This is all google's data, that their users enter into their system. Of course I'm OK with them doing whatever they do with their data. The limits are whatever they told their users the limits would be! That is their responsibility.

Who are these idiots who aren't OK with it? If I start a web service, you think I'm going to ask the internet how to handle that data, or am I going to make decisions myself depending on the needs of my business and the needs of my customers?

I mean, if you want it to be "your data" then you run it on your servers. For example, using OwnCloud or something. If you want it to be somebody else's data, and you can accept partial control, then you use some cloud service... like google.

Re:Sure

[ChatHuant]

if it was my data they wouldn't even let it onto their network!

You don't really understand how it works, do you?
 

if you want it to be "your data" then you run it on your servers.

That's naive, simplistic and, unfortunately, wrong. Running your own servers isn't enough - Google is collecting much more data than what users intentionally put into their systems, and therein lies the problem. Google is collecting data even if people have no direct interaction with Google or their properties. Are you checking Slashdot? Well, Slashdot reports you to Google, via calls to google-analytics and gstatic. Were you notified of this? Heck, no. Can you opt out? Only by not using Slashdot, or thousands of other sites. Are you using some WIFI somewhere? Chances are they use Google DNS, and Google will record your queries and correlate your patterns of use until they know it's you.

Even if you decide to give up on the whole internet thing and only live off-line, Google's eye is still on you. Are you using your credit card at some brick and mortar store? Google knows, because they buy your credit card transaction history. You haven't consented to any of this pervasive data slurping, you aren't notified, and you can't opt out. Even if you don't have any Google accounts, even if you never go to any of Google's properties, and don't even have an Android phone, you WILL be tracked.

Re:Sure

[Altrag]

You don't really understand how it works, do you?

I believe parent knew exactly how it worked, and that was his point: Once you put it on their servers, its no longer "your" data in the sense that you don't have any control over it (hell, even if your theoretical legal control isn't explicitly removed by the EULA, good luck enforcing your rights against the likes of Google.)

Google is collecting much more data than what users intentionally put into their systems

While technically true, most people aren't really all that concerned with tracking cookies. What they're concerned with is who will see it when they save a picture of their junk to Google Drive, or for a more corporate example, who for example has access to their payroll or even customer data.

And credit card history? I think we're all a little more concerned with Equifax than Google right now when it comes to that one. Not that I'd claim its impossible for us to hear of a Google hack tomorrow or next week or whatever, but Equifax has demonstrated basically no remorse over their hack(s!) and repeatedly demonstrated their lack of ability (and maybe even concern) to prevent future hacks.

Tracking is a fact of life. Its unfortunate and occasionally annoying, but there's very little you can do about it as you say. That's not really in the same category as knowing the actual documents that you're intentionally storing are secure.

Re:Sure

[Aighearach]

Thank you for understanding my words. That's a little bit... unusual around here!

Once you put it on their servers, its no longer "your" data in the sense that you don't have any control over it (hell, even if your theoretical legal control isn't explicitly removed by the EULA, good luck enforcing your rights against the likes of Google.)

In the United States the data is owned by them for sure; you may own the copyright, but they own the copy that is stored physically on their system. You can't get it into their system without creating a copy inside their system; you have to copy it in! And they always own that copy. But you're right; even if it was only that they control their own servers it would already be as if they owned it. Of course, not all their data is stored in the US so this might vary depending where you're using the service.

Maybe there is an idea for a new service lurking there; let people mail in flash drives, and then you plug them into a cloud service, and the user can access their own data remotely, and the service provider doesn't own the data. Colo hosting for flash drives instead of servers! I guess if I did a web search I'd find 1000 of those companies already, darn.

As for the credit card stuff, I consented when I signed up for the card. People who think they didn't consent should read legal documents before signing them. I don't use my CC for every purchase, but I also don't want to have to use cash for every purchase. It is nice to have choices. A couple times a year I go and buy a Money Order and mail it somewhere because I don't trust anybody involved; retaining and utilizing choices is the most important thing for consumers to do these days. Most of the whining is, "I want convenience and I don't know how it works and being ignorant is scary so convenience is scary, why are these people all so scary?!" The reality isn't perfect, sure. But a buffet of choices exist. Yeah, SSN is way scarier than "internet companies get access to the same data every large store already has had for decades."

No.

[QuietLagoon]

That's why I don't use google (and other) cloud services.

Re: No.

[Zero__Kelvin]

They can't crack my encryption. Stop getting your knowledge of encryption from NCIS.

It is their business model

[605dave]

I have never been a fan of Google starting with gmail. Google's business from day one was to collect as much data on you as possible and either use that data themselves or sell it to others. It boggled my mind why anyone would use gmail because of the privacy issues, but then realized that email was so hard to set up at the time that it was the path of least resistance for the masses. And in the process they gave up more than they realized. All of this goes for Facebook as well.

Re:It is their business model

[Anonymous Coward]

When google started offering that service over a decade ago, the concept of what big data could do with the data wasn't as well established. At the time, they didn't own doubleclick and they were just using it to serve ads to pay for the service. Which seemed reasonable to a lot of people at the time, they weren't supposed to be reading it with employees, it was supposed to be done with computers.

But, since then, the amount of data that companies can get their hands on without having permission has skyrocketed changing the context quite a bit. If it were just my email, it wouldn't be an issue, but it's all sorts of other things that I don't even know what they have of mine on their servers.

At this point, the only thing that people who care about privacy can do is get as much bad data into their profile as possible to poison it to the point of being worthless.

Re: It is their business model

[Aighearach]

Of course gmail's spam filtering is better.

Google knows who the spammers are. They probably charge them extra to get through those filters - you know they're already selling your data to them.

That shows how ignorant you are, even though you comment anyways.

Nothing gets through the filter, so there is nothing for them to pretend got through! It may just be that they're better at this part of the service than anybody else. Their users would probably be shocked by how much spam you get. Easily a billion times more than them. ;)

Re:It is their business model

[thegarbz]

It boggled my mind why anyone would use gmail because of the privacy issues

Yeah, and we've gotten nothing in return. Certainly no improvements in spam filtration, language processing, translation, personal assistants, etc. ...

Re:It is their business model

[mikael]

Back in the 1990's, the US government had a problem. They wanted to monitor the internet (email, IRC, Usenet, web servers, credit ratings, loan companies, mortgage companies, bank accounts) and build up databases, but that wouldn't be tolerated by the public to have the government have a database with so much information about them. So the solution was to have private companies do the work, and use data mining and advertising revenue as a source of income to help pay for these systems. The US government would then become another private customer. Then when social media came along, the hardest part was to create content and keep it fresh. This becomes harder the more users you have. But if you have your users do this for you, then that problem is solved as well. Plus the additional benefit is that it is all digitized and cross referenced. They even get users to do the sorting for them with websites like PInterest.

Re:It is their business model

[Altrag]

That's quite a ways down the conspiracy hole given that Snowden's release pretty much detailed the extent of the government's electronic spying -- including its limitations (well as of a couple years ago at least.) In particular, rather than setting up these "private" companies to do their bidding, they were having trouble convincing the companies to play ball, to the extent that they were essentially trying to do things like wiretap Google and suck up the data on its way to/from their servers.

At least that's what they want you to believe, amirite?

If I use Google, I might like my data back

[El Cubano]

If I use Google, I expect that I should be able to get my data back at some point. Perhaps when I log in to GMail, and maybe at other times. Providing that service without a few calls to read() seems infeasible.

Oh, did you mean something else by the headline?

Yes

[TechyImmigrant]

When I put unencrypted data on a cloud drive, it doesn't matter what the legal agreement is. The underlying truth is that the data can be read. Act accordingly. Don't put unencrypted data on a cloud service drive that you don't want to be read by someone else, whether the service provider or some other entity (government, hacker, malcontent employee etc.).

When you are running a business, this is a tradeoff. The costs of hosting it yourself and making sure it's backed up, available and secure are significant. Do you care more about Google reading your stock report than you care about putting in time and money to host it yourself. In many cases it's a slam dunk and the data gets hosted on Google for a reasonable fee. In some cases, the data goes in a secure place in a secure manner, but it's a small fraction of the data.

Re:Yes

[Aighearach]

In other news, don't print secrets on T-shirts either.

Re:Yes

[Kjella]

To be honest, that's not how most people think about their data. For the most part they think that some entities are acting within the law like Google, Apple etc. and the law will protect them. And then there's the entities that operate outside the law and they'll hack their way in whether it's local or in the cloud. Look at all the people who get viruses and malware, they don't feel particularly much safer just because it's physically on-premise. At least with the cloud they got backups so it's done half right, often they don't have anything.

For a business, it's pretty much the same except how much do you really trust your employees to be better than the cloud providers? Maybe a few that focus very hard on IT security do, but for most businesses it's like my network, their network... it's not exactly risk free either way. If you got real secrets I'd keep them on an air-gapped computer.

Re:Yes

[TechyImmigrant]

To be honest, that's not how most people think about their data. For the most part they think that some entities are acting within the law like Google, Apple etc. and the law will protect them. And then there's the entities that operate outside the law and they'll hack their way in whether it's local or in the cloud. Look at all the people who get viruses and malware, they don't feel particularly much safer just because it's physically on-premise. At least with the cloud they got backups so it's done half right, often they don't have anything.

For a business, it's pretty much the same except how much do you really trust your employees to be better than the cloud providers? Maybe a few that focus very hard on IT security do, but for most businesses it's like my network, their network... it's not exactly risk free either way. If you got real secrets I'd keep them on an air-gapped computer.

In my case, the business is a Yarn store and it's my wife's. That she's married to a cryptographic security expert means the yarn store in question is somewhat better provided for in terms of security than the average yarn store.

I've developed air gapped systems for CAs before, but in the final analysis. they're less secure than a non air-gapped system because air-gapping means delegating various tasks to humans that are normally automated. So it's easy for the humans to conspire and undermine the security. When it's automated, it's easy to put a lot of checking on the communication path into the secure area.

Re:Yes

[TechyImmigrant]

What makes you think your data aren't being decrypted for sports and data collection?

My file encryption is better than the standard encryption algorithms. It's a mix of multiple encryption algorithms from multiple countries. Also I modified the algorithms to make them more secure. Mostly by running more rounds. The random numbers used for keys were generated using quantum resistant algorithms and the symmetric keying is large enough to resist Grover's algorithm.

Such is the life of a cryptographer with some spare time.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[bickerdyke]

Have a company NOT scanning documents on their servers for malware and childporn and you're open for all kinf of lawsuits, both criminal and civil.

I'm, not exactly happy with my documents being scanned, but if I was a lawyer in Google's compliance department, it would still be in place.

At least that bug showed that it's only an automated scanner and not someone actually reading through them.

Furthermore, did this actually happen in GSuite too or only the free version?

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Altrag]

You could have it say, just scan if/when the user attempts to create a public share/link/whatever rather than immediately, and prevent the document from being shared if it doesn't pass muster rather than arbitrarily deleting it.

Of course that's probably still risky in other ways.. a criminal could store private documents on your server rather than his own PC and as long as he doesn't store knowledge of his account anywhere, authorities would never be able to find it (and on the other side, if you store it on your server unencrypted, your potentially opening yourself up to liability if a hacker gets in and starts siphoning peoples' files..)

No matter how they do it though, arbitrarily deleting document seems like a pretty bad practice to me. Even a small chance of false positive and purging say someone's irreplaceable baby pictures because they got marked as child porn seems a bit overkill to me.. the user should always be allowed the chance/opportunity to move the files elsewhere if you don't want to be hosting them (or better yet, prevented from uploading them in the first place, with appropriate notifications so they know what happened before hitting the delete button on their local copy.)

Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[bickerdyke]

I thought they were only flagged to become unaccessible. Deleting them may be destruction of evidence in case some gouvernment agency wants to screw with you ("you" as in the file hosting company who probably needs that army of lawyers for exactly such problems)

Likewise, not scanning them regularly still might open your company to charges of "posession"

Re:No I'm not.

[fluffernutter]

I've tried OwnCloud and SeaFile but both of them seem to have trouble with directories with open files. Seafile was a bit better but ends up with conflicts it can't deal with even when I am the only user of the directory from one location at a time.

Yes.

[freeze128]

Yes, I'm OK with Google reading my data... but only the data I *ALLOW* them to read by storing on their cloud service. For everything else, it's offline.

Re:Yes.

[Altrag]

Pre-encrypt it. Then you get the benefits of cloud storage (much better persistence than your average hard drive, without having to invest in and maintain a full RAID yourself) without them being able to read it (assuming you encrypt it with a secure algorithm.)

Of course there's the downside of having to manually download and decrypt it any time you want to use the data. Nothing's ever easy!

Better them than my wife

[denisbergeron]

Just saying

Microsoft 365

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this any different from Microsoft 365? Is Google specifically being called out for a reason other than being the biggest player?

Cannot happen

[LordHighExecutioner]

I strongly discouraged my coworkers to share documents using Google Docs. We used it now and then for writing some scientific papers, but our work is too valuable to have somebody snooping it. We then came back to offline strong encryption and email file exchange. This of course does not ease collaborative writing anymore, but we found that actually - at least in our work - our present approach is much better. Next step will be to have coworkers give up Word for Latex, but this is not easy...
I, for myself, never used Chrome, and I stopped using Google search and email since last change of service agreement.

If you aren't comfortable with the chance that...

[rnturn]

... someone outside your company could be reading the company's confidential data then maybe you shouldn't be putting it on someone else's computers. Just sayin'.

Hell, NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

They can go read the newspapers instead.

That's why I disable Javascript in the browser, however the ubiquitous spawn of urchin.js is called these days.

Here's a random quote of this very page's source, somewhat embellished for readability, for you to see what I mean:

function() {
        var ga = document.createElement('script');
        ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
        ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ?
            'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
        [...]

Of course, for searches, I go to DuckDuckGo, ixquick or similar.

They still do get too many data from me, but the less, the merrier. Hell, no.

Re:Hell, NO!

[Trax3001BBS]

They can go read the newspapers instead.

That's why I disable Javascript in the browser, however the ubiquitous spawn of urchin.js is called these days.

Here's a random quote of this very page's source, somewhat embellished for readability, for you to see what I mean:

function() {

        var ga = document.createElement('script');

        ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;

        ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ?

            'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';

        [...]

Of course, for searches, I go to DuckDuckGo, ixquick or similar.

They still do get too many data from me, but the less, the merrier. Hell, no.

From my HOSTS file: 127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com and Google is my search engine of choice.

Re:Hell, NO!

[Trax3001BBS]

Yes, I've a couple of those in my hosts too (doubleclick too).

The nice thing is that I can then see the accesses in my local web server's logs :-)

Just for kicks, I thought I might my local web server serve up *something* depending on the request (just imagine the tracking gifs as little red dots or something).

Linux has a program called EtherApe that's a lot of fun to watch https://www.google.com/search?...

Re:Hell, NO!

[Altrag]

They can go read the newspapers instead.

They do that too, and many newspapers have taken issue with the practice.

How to disconnect from Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has done a lot of good for the world, but also a lot of bad. It needs to be put into check, and that can only happen if users hold it to account and hit it in the pocketbook. That means if anyone really cares about this, they need to cut off the ability of Google to monetize them. Of course, that does NOT mean going to Microsoft or some other equally-dubious company. Pick strong, private alternatives.

1. Get away from Gmail. Use a privacy-friendly alternative e-mail service like Startmail or ProtonMail. Yes, you will probably have to pay. You are either paying cash or paying with your data.

2. Break off Google search. Use DuckDuckGo to keep your searches private. If you want Google results, use Startpage instead; it will search Google privately on your behalf, preventing it from monetizing you.

3. Ditch Chrome. If you love the UI, then use the open source Chromium instead. Otherwise use Firefox (which is about to get a LOT better with the new overhaul debuting later this month) or Brave. Use your browser with ad blockers like Disconnect, uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus and Privacy Badger to stop Google and others from serving you tracking ads.

4. If you use an Android, consider running CopperheadOS on your phone. It is built on Android code, but hardened for security and free of Google data mining.

5. Say no to Google cloud storage services. If you want a high security option, use SpiderOak. Otherwise, you can use Boxcryptor to locally encrypt your files before sending them to the cloud so that they cannot be data mined.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[Calydor]

There is an awesomely delicious irony to linking to a Youtube video about disconnecting from Google.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Emphasis on uBlock Origin . Do not use regular uBlock that pops up in searches, it's dodgy to say the least.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, you wrote "an awesomely delicious irony to" instead of "a sign of total monopoly when".

It's a common typo.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[fermion]

It is naive to think anyone who uses a computer can get away from Google without expending an impractical amount of effort and money. It is also unreasonable to think that Google is the problem, not the structure of the free services on the internet. What is reasonable is to weight the risks and benefits of the services we use. To apply the popular car analogy, not everyone pays for a car that is build for security because the benefits for a particular person may not be that great. For instance, a car that is difficult to steal may also be difficult to modify or even may not start if if one of the checks are faulty.

There are two things we know. We know that if we are not paying a fee to support the service, then the end user is the product. We know that corporate can get to our data, and profit pressures will promote bad behavior if a corporate entity, for instance Verizon, is facing profit pressures. In the case of google, we know that it's business model is to mine data, and that Documents and Drive were arguably developed to facilitate that collection.

Take google drive for instance. We have always known that google has access to the data, and that google controls if we have access to the data. For me that means that anything that is secure, anything that is critical, goes on a paid service. However, I use Drive and Documents for certain things because it is a good solution. It does not matter if Google has my data. It does not matter if tomorrow google shuts down the service.

Gmail is the same thing. For most people the cost of a paid service is not going to be meaningful. I wonder about the people who do business over gmail, a paid hosting and domain name is less than $100 a year, but for them maybe their business is not serious.

Google makes it money by tracking every move on the web. It does not matter the website, web browser, service used. Ads, ad tracking, click tracking, is everywhere.

Re: How to disconnect from Google

[xenoc_1]

For alternative browser, also consider Vivaldi.

Chromium-based but different UI, very configurable, with option for status bar, separate search box, much of the user-has-control philosophy of old-school Firefox. From the some of the original founders and developers of Opera, with much of its design flexibility but none of the now-Chinese company. No Operas services. Uses the Chrome web store, not the sketchy Opera one.

Win, Mac, Linux. Unlike Chrome still supports 32-bit as well as 64-bit, so there's a fully-enabled Chrome-compatible production-stable browser for things like repurposed XP machines, netbooks, and other low-end PCs that run Linux 32-bit well but can't run 64-bit, which Chrome abandoned. Unlike Chromium it does have the API license keys and code bits for Chromecast and some other "must be Google" services. But otherwise none of the googlybits.

No sync at all, so no passwords, history, form-fill nor bookmarks going up to Google (or Microsoft or Mozilla depending on browser) servers at all. But supports extensions for KeePass, LastPass, Xmarks, etc. so you can roll your own private sync or trust a commercial but non-Google service of your choice, at least for passwords, and if Xmarks then bookmarks. I'm using KeePass 2 with chromeIpass extension, with the KeePass database on my ownCloud on my own VPS. But I could put that anywhere.

Vivaldi is working on their own sync but it's not out yet. Nor is their same-sync-ecosystem proposed Android browser. But with third party sync you can work around that. 3rd-party sync or no sync at all is a privacy upgrade over Chrome (or any browser maker's) built-in sync anyhow.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[thegarbz]

Or I could just stick with Google, and realise that their not only monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange. I give them my words for better translation. I give them my schedule for better predictive alerts. I give them my location in exchange for better navigation systems and more relevant local search results.

I could just ditch them. I could also go back to living in a cave. I could do a lot of things, but I won't.

For better or worse I trust Google with my information as I know it is in their best financial interest to keep that information private. If they sell that information they lose the ability to continuously monetize it. Their corporate agenda aligns with my idea that my information should only be shared in a limited way.

The same can not be said for a company who's primary source of income is a physical product. They don't have much of an incentive to keep my data private.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[Paradise Pete]

It's a common typo.

Yeah. The keys are like right next to each other.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[Tony Isaac]

In other words, stop using the Internet.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[rtb61]

Google makes all of it's money from all over the web and investments in many other companies. So what, that does not mean you can not give them a swift ole kick in the balls by crippling one of their business interests. Unhappy wildly out of control invasives and built in tools to mass deleted what ever the fucking hell it wants too, than simply stop using google docs. So what about the rest, enough people stop and google will feel their balls right up the back of their throat in that one business, bye bye business and it does really hurt when it happens. Really, honestly there is no reason why everyone should not be using https://duckduckgo.com/?q=duck... and use google maps just for maps, think they wont really feel that kick, you are nuts, heh, heh. As a user, unhappy with google, feel free to react by punishing them in what ever legal commercial manner you find reasonable ie stop using their service or services, express you negative views about google and their services as far and as often as you feel appropriate, seriously just another web site with a massive PR campaign going to convince you they are the be all and end all, making you believe in their power and the big shit at alphabet is God. Just another digital company with delusions of grandeur about to suffer the consequences of some likely drug infused insane power trips (they control the internet, yep, uh huh).

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[vux984]

"If they sell that information they lose the ability to continuously monetize it."

Think about what that actually means.

" monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange."

At the end of the year, there is less money in your bank account. That is the service they provide you.

  'better translation', 'predictive alerts', 'location' ... all so that they can sell access to you to someone who wants to sell you something you didn't need, targeted to you. To plant a seed to buy it.

I have noticed over the last several years, my efforts to block ads and consume ad free sources has had the unexpected side benefit of reducing our material wants... and reduce our spending in general. We simply don't buy as much, even the kids want noticably less. The result, I think, is that when we do want things its stuff we really do want.

What you see as 'relevant ads' in your search results, I see as something I was perfectly happy not knowing about, that i don't need, and won't miss.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[thegarbz]

Think about what that actually means.

I did. That's how I got to the conclusion that they are interested in keeping my data safe rather than most other companies (see ISPs) who will happily sell it.

At the end of the year, there is less money in your bank account. That is the service they provide you.

Please, do enlighten me. How is there less money in my bank account as a result of this? I struggle to see how I am better off financially paying money to get a private email service, paying money for a company that has to spend a fortune on R&D to get datasets to improve their systems, and paying more taxes so my local government can augment their roads with high tech tracking equipment so that they can provide dynamic traffic remapping services. (Side note: I trust Google with my location data more than the government).

I have noticed over the last several years, my efforts to block ads and consume ad free sources has had the unexpected side benefit of reducing our material wants... and reduce our spending in general.

You are incredibly weak minded. But I do agree, switching from getting relevant ads to having your kids instead be greeted with offers of Viagra, penis enlargements, illegal gamblings services and sexy Russian singles like the pre-targetted advertising internet I'm sure would reduce their spending.

What you see as 'relevant ads' in your search results, I see as something I was perfectly happy not knowing about, that i don't need, and won't miss.

What I see as 'relevant ads' I see as 'ads' regardless. The presence of the ads doesn't naturally make me consume, it entices me to pick one product over the other. If it were otherwise I'd probably consider going to the doctor for a renewed Adderall subscription, Because that is ... oh wait, BRB, just saw an advert I need to go buy a Ford Focus because the new one has a sunroof.

By the way you got a spare dollar? Why not enjoy a nice refreshing Coca Cola.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[Dr. Evil]

I don't see how this is different than saying "I have nothing to hide"

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[thegarbz]

Then you fail to understand the fundamental point of my post. I do have something to hide, but at the same time I trust that it is hidden in some insanely huge database within Google and that the things I have to hide won't be sold off to third parties. I don't have the same trust in e.g. Microsoft as keeping my personal data to themselves is not their core business and there's no major profit motive preventing them from selling this to third parties.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[slashrio]

It is naive to think anyone who uses a computer can get away from Google without expending an impractical amount of effort and money.

Bullshit.
I ditched Google for Duckduckgo.com and that's it.
Minimal effort.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[vux984]

" (Side note: I trust Google with my location data more than the government)."

That's cute.

"You are incredibly weak minded."

If you think advertising doesn't work on people, or that it only works on the 'incredibly weak minded', and above all if you think that it doesn't work on you, then you are delusional.

Its far more sensible to assume that it does work on you, in ways you aren't immediately cognizant of. After all practically nobody sees an add for a new car with a sunroof and immediately heads out to buy it; its not that simplistic.

"it entices me to pick one product over the other"

You've already lost if your starting point is choosing which product to buy.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[Dr. Evil]

So you're saying Microsoft, because they sell the service as a product is more likely to expose your information than Google, who sells your information as a product.

It's so illogical to me that I thought you were arguing that you had nothing to hide. No... I don't get it.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[mjwx]

Or I could just stick with Google, and realise that their not only monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange. I give them my words for better translation. I give them my schedule for better predictive alerts. I give them my location in exchange for better navigation systems and more relevant local search results.

This, I know that Google is using my data for profit. I also know Microsoft and Apple are doing the exact same thing but are being less open about it.

Google has always been honest that they're in the business of selling data, but they've also been the only ones to give us some solid reassurance that the data is anonymised before being sold on. They state this up front instead of burying it in their T&C in lawerspeak like Apple, Microsoft and others.

Sure I know I'm trading my precious, precious data for quality services, Google hasn't been deceptive about it and its better than bartering chickens.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[thegarbz]

No I'm saying precisely the opposite. Microsoft's core business is not your data so they have no inherent interest in keeping your data safe. To them it's just a value added side benefit.

Google on the other hand sells services based entirely on your data. For them it's like the recipe to Coke. If they sold it to third parties they lose all power.

I'm not sure if I could make this any simpler so if you don't understand that line of thought then don't bother replying.

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[thegarbz]

That's cute.

Wow, look out people. Someone has some mind blowing arguments here.

If you think advertising doesn't work on people, or that it only works on the 'incredibly weak minded', and above all if you think that it doesn't work on you, then you are delusional.

No I'm actually in marketing. Advertisement provides two distinct emotional responses in people. One works to make someone attracted to a concept, that only works on the truly weak minded if you don't already have a pre-existing desire. E.g. You could see an advertisement for sharp knives right now, chances are it will have zero effect on you. Just like an advertisement for Coke just after you down a gallon of water.

The other kind of response people have are to direct their attention to a specific product within their existing desires. E.g. You're thirsty, the advert will likely make you drink Coke instead of say Pepsi.

In either case only the really weak of mind end up spending more. Most people just end up spending the same but with different vendors.

You've already lost if your starting point is choosing which product to buy.

Yeah sure. Don't eat or buy soap in the future. See how long it goes before you "lose".

Re:How to disconnect from Google

[vux984]

"The other kind of response people have are to direct their attention to a specific product within their existing desires. E.g. You're thirsty, the advert will likely make you drink Coke instead of say Pepsi."

I'm sure you already know all this, since you're actually in marketing...

Most people have more abstract pre-existing desires than 'I'm thirsty... I need a drink'. Stuff like "I want to be successful. I want to fit in. I want to be happy. I want to be healthy. I want to be secure. I want to be loved. I want to be respected. I want to have fun. I want to find meaning in life. I want to be attractive. I want to be comfortable."

Coke hasn't really advertised that its product will resolve your immediate thirst problem in decades. It's been advertising to a batch of those more abstract wants. Likewise, car ads aren't made for people who need to get somewhere.

In either case only the really weak of mind end up spending more. Most people just end up spending the same but with different vendors.

Here's a few stats that refute that argument, showing advertising directly increases sales accross all vendors. (so its not just shifting dollars from vendor a to vendor b).

https://www.kff.org/health-cos...

Here's a study that shows people who are already fans of a product will buy more of the product due to ads. (ie if Adidas was ALREADY their preferred vendor when it comes time to buy shorts they'll buy adidias so showing them ads isn't going to help right? Nope... they'll buy more than they would have otherwise with ads.)

https://sproutsocial.com/insig...

Unlike most I do read Tos's/EULA's

[Trax3001BBS]

I don't need to read anything to understand once I upload a file from my computer I've relinquish any sole control over it.

why not

[Osgeld]

I gave them my files with full permissions, why should I be shocked that they looked at them

I mean

DUH

Still ongoing

[GNious]

Remember when Google randomly flagged files in Google Docs for violating its terms of service?

Yes, since it happened again yesterday.

But don't worry, you can now request a review of the blocked file, by opening the file that you cannot open and requesting a review from within it.

Re:We need more info.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the TFA, AC.

From Google Drive TOS http://www.google.com/drive/terms-of-service/

Your Conduct. Don’t misuse Google Drive. You may use Google Drive only as permitted by law, including applicable export and re-export control laws and regulations. You are responsible for your conduct and your content stored in Google Drive, and you must comply with our Program Policies. We may review your conduct and content in Google Drive for compliance with the Terms and our Program Policies.

Your Content. Google Drive allows you to upload, submit, store, send and receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.

When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through Google Drive, you give Google a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.

Here's the link Google's Program Polices https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505?hl=en
It's too large to quote but covers "spam, malware, and phishing", "Violence", "Hate speech", "Harassment, bullying, and threats", "Sexually explicit material", "Child exploitation", "Impersonation", "Personal and confidential information", "Illegal activities", "Copyright infringement", and "Content use and submission".

Of course Google reads your stuff. How could it not if they go to the trouble of scanning for the above listed categories?

Re:If you aren't comfortable with the chance that.

[DontBeAMoran]

Especially when someone else's computers are in "the cloud". Clouds are made up of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide), and we all know how dangerous that chemical can be.

Most people don't know their mail is not private

[Registered Coward v2]

I've received legal documents, some clearly client confidential, on ongoing litigation in error. Beyond my not agreeing to any of the legal disclaimers on the email, if Google read it and retained a copy I wonder what the ramifications are for keeping it confidential.

Re:Google = R+D arm of the NSA

[DontBeAMoran]

This is what I keep on my Google drive account in a file called "top-secret-encrypted-data.zip"

Pbatenghyngvbaf thlf, lbh penpxrq zl rapelcgvba!

Uvtu svirf nyy nebhaq! Lbh'er gur orfg!

But they said they were helping us

[boudie2]

A young blonde woman was so depressed that she decided to end her life by throwing herself from the Bourne Bridge. She was about to leap into the frigid water when a handsome young sailor saw her tottering on the edge of the bridge, crying. He took pity on her and said "Look, you have so much to live for. I'm off to Europe in the morning, and if you like, I can stow you away on my ship and you can start a new life in Europe ... I'll take good care of you and bring you food everyday"
. "How can I repay you for such kindness" she asked.

"Just let me make love to you each night..." The blonde agreed.

That night, the sailor brought her aboard and hid her in a lifeboat. From then on, every night he brought her three sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and they made passionate love until dawn. Three weeks later, during a routine inspection, she was discovered by the captain.

"What are you doing here?" the captain asked.

"I have an arrangement with one of the sailors, who stowed me away" she explained. "I get food and free passage to Europe and he's screwing me".

"He certainly is", the captain said. "This is the Nantucket Ferry."

Re:But they said they were helping us

[boudie2]

Coward!

No

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"Are You OK With Google Reading Your Data?"

Never was, never will be. Next stupid question, please.

Does anyone posting here understand computers?!

[jcam2]

Any documents you have stored in google cloud / docs / drive are already being scanned by their software - how else could those docs be displayed and indexed?

Further scanning for malware or whatever isn't done by humans - it's fully automated, implemented by software that in the recent case happened to be buggy.

No

[AHuxley]

No....
What starts as an offer of AV?
Then just for the worst files of interest to the police?
Then SJW suggestions and language corrections?

Stay away from the cloud and having your documents content examined by strangers.

I trust Google's profit motive

[thegarbz]

Yes I'm okay with Google reading my data because their profit motive aligns with my desire for the data to not be shared to every idiot with a spare dollar. Google is in the business of providing access and providing services. To do this their secret sauce recipe is the data they collect from you. That makes them much more likely to keep your data private and properly anonymise it when external parties come and request services.

Compare that to a company like Samsung who make money by selling physical things. I have no doubt that they don't give a shit about my data (they don't even bother encrypting it in transit). The highest bidder will happily end up with the entire data base and who knows maybe all the bidders will.

My data is being shared with whichever cloud / service provider I use to go about my daily high-tech life. Out of all of them I find it hard to trust a company more than Google because for once their profit motive aligns with my goals.

Re:I trust Google's profit motive

[lgw]

. Google is in the business of providing access and providing services.

Google is an advertising company. It's most of their revenue. You are their product, not their customer. They're in the business of selling your data to their customers, albeit indirectly by knowing every detail about you to target ads. Google needs to know your race, age, sex, religion, address, shopping habits, sexual preference, where you work, how much you make, how many kids you have and where they go to school, and so on. And unless you've been very careful, they know all of these things exactly, because they read all your documents and track all your online activities. It's what they do, and it's creepy as fuck.

Re:I trust Google's profit motive

[thegarbz]

They're in the business of selling your data to their customers

Please next time open with: "I'm a parrot who parrots the you're the product meme but I have no clue". It would have saved you some time. Google has never parted with your data. They don't sell your information any more than Coca Cola sells their recipe to McDonalds so they can make it themselves.

Please, learn how Google services work, especially the adsense service.

Google needs to know your race, age, sex, religion, address, shopping habits, sexual preference, where you work, how much you make, how many kids you have and where they go to school, and so on. And unless you've been very careful, they know all of these things exactly, because they read all your documents and track all your online activities.

And then maybe don't post on Slashdot under the influence of drugs. Really if you want to write pointless prose then create a new thread because your post has fuck all to do with mine.

Re:I trust Google's profit motive

[lgw]

Does it matter whether Google is selling your information to a third party? They're already the creepy guy you don't want having your info.

And do you disagree they know everything about you? Or do you not see the problem with e.g. Google having a database of all Muslims in the US?

Re:I trust Google's profit motive

[thegarbz]

Does it matter whether Google is selling your information to a third party?

Erm. Yes. When entrusting someone with something it is kind of one of the biggest fucking points.

Re:I trust Google's profit motive

[lgw]

Not to me: I'm first concerned with the vendor not looking at my data! Of course, just encrypt everything and it doesn't matter, but that's impractical for email.

Re:I trust Google's profit motive

[thegarbz]

Not to me:

Good then go find yourself another conversation about a topic that is relevant to you.

You can't hide from Google

[Tony Isaac]

You can stop using GMail, but you'll probably still want to exchange emails with others who do use GMail, so Google still gets to read a significant percentage of your emails. You can't tell by the domain name either, since there are many domains that route their email through GMail.

You can stop using Google Search, but you'll still end up on a site that hosts Google ads, and therefore sends Google your browsing info. You can turn off javascript, but it doesn't matter, Google ads don't need javascript to track you. Even ad blockers won't help, because many sites willingly send Google your data in the name of analytics.

You can stop using Chrome, but the above tracking methods don't require Chrome.

You can reduce your exposure somewhat, but not by all that much. And if it's not Google you're sending your data to, it's probably Microsoft or Apple.

Re:Most people don't know their mail is not privat

[Altrag]

Probably none. The sender's use of the service entails an acceptance of the EULA and therefore any email sent over their service either:
a) grants Google the right to store, read and forward the email, or
b) if its a document that would legally require both parties' waiver for Google to perform those tasks, then the liability is on the sender for not understanding how the hell email works, never mind what Google does with the email behind the scenes.

In both cases, Google has no liability when it comes to confidential documents -- if its truly confidential, then the onus is on you to find a more private mode of transmission.

The only way Google could potentially have liability is if you could show that a confidential email went to the wrong recipient due to an actual technical error on their end.

Re:Annoy me "Ol Olsoc"? You make me laugh... apk

[Ol Olsoc]

Awesome, thanks for doing me the honor of my very own subthread topic!

Re:You're off-topic & out of downmod 'bullets'

[Ol Olsoc]

We do have some fun though, don't we APK?

Re:You're off-topic & out of downmod 'bullets'

[Ol Olsoc]

Chatbot.

Re:More like "blow you away" bot, lol... apk

[Ol Olsoc]

See subject & as I said?

You need some new material, I get bored easily, monchichi.

Just block google-analytics and gstatic

[ErwinMoller]

That's naive, simplistic and, unfortunately, wrong. Running your own servers isn't enough - Google is collecting much more data than what users intentionally put into their systems, and therein lies the problem. Google is collecting data even if people have no direct interaction with Google or their properties. Are you checking Slashdot? Well, Slashdot reports you to Google, via calls to google-analytics and gstatic. Were you notified of this? Heck, no. Can you opt out? Only by not using Slashdot, or thousands of other sites. Are you using some WIFI somewhere? Chances are they use Google DNS, and Google will record your queries and correlate your patterns of use until they know it's you.

Hint to anybody who doesn't know (10% of Slashdot visitors I bet):You can simply block google-analytics and gstatic via plugins in your browser, or more elaborate, via hostfile editting and a number of other ways. I use Privacy Badger and NoScript. Most website (including slashdot) work perfectly well with google spyware disabled. But some websites do not.