| > A Google sign in is needed even to login and the only native apps are Google's own. How is this different or better than Palladium? In a technical sense, it's very different from Palladium. Given the machine is sold as a device to better connect to Google's services and you can in fact get things done without a Google sign on, it seems qualitatively different as well. But why inject fact into a marvellous diatribe? > They also include the WideVine DRM that they acquired and use for Netflix which is not compatible with desktop Linux which is still forced to use a Silverlight port. This is Netflix's decision and stipulation. Google has their own suite of technologies they'd surely prefer (or even better, for Netflix to integrate with Google's cloud platform). As for Firefox's dilemma, I'm not sure anyone cares how they feel or what they do. They've systematically failed the consumer marketplace as a force for openness for years now. Any cred they may have had here was spent long ago. > The only redeeming feature is that you can jump through hoops and install Linux(while suffering through an annoying prompt at every boot), which can be done on any Windows PC anyway, but >95% of Chromebook buyers are going to be locked in. Again that's not entirely true, although in this case it depends on the model number. What's more, you can also run ubuntu's environment alongside the chrome OS without requiring a full reinstall. > And they only recently stopped parsing e-mail in Google Apps for Schools(which they give away for free) and Business(paid) to build ad profiles to show in other Google properties after they couldn't continue telling the lies they were telling to the public in federal court. That's a curious interpretation of the case. It mostly stems from this interesting legal idea that using the corpus of a text for ad processing is somehow akin to the full violation of privacy that a human scanning the document would have. I am not sure any of us are entirely comfortable with either interpretation, but ad targeting for gapps has never not happened nor has it ever been anything but an obvious monetization model for an otherwise free service. So... yeah. Death of freedom I guess. > Which part of this is about the open internet again? When did we start conflating "the Open Internet" with "using analytics for advertising?" by the way. I don't see a contradiction between the two. The internet can be "open" and vendors can watch their wifi routers for when known device ids try to connect and build profiles and sell that data. They're orthogonal. |
I'm very surprised that you think it's obvious for people who use the paid Gapps for business that their business emails were being datamined for ad keywords to show on other Google sites even if the admin unchecked the "Show ads" checkbox(unless I am reading you wrong). It's not a "free service" like you claim. Perhaps some Gapps users can chime in? Can you tell us whether docs on Drive are scanned as well? How do we know?
Edit:
I'd be okay with scanning if it was properly disclosed like in the free Gmail. There is such a thing as informed consent, but looks like was a lot of misleading statements going on about GApps.
The below is about Apps for Education, but looks like it applies to Google Apps for business as well, since they stopped the practice recently for both.
From http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.ht... :
"As part of a potentially explosive lawsuit making its way through federal court, the giant online-services provider Google has acknowledged scanning the contents of millions of email messages sent and received by student users of the company’s Apps for Education tool suite for schools. In the suit, the Mountain View, Calif.-based company also faces accusations from plaintiffs that it went further, crossing a “creepy line” by using information gleaned from the scans to build “surreptitious” profiles of Apps for Education users that could be used for such purposes as targeted advertising."
"A Google spokeswoman confirmed to Education Week that the company “scans and indexes” the emails of all Apps for Education users for a variety of purposes, including potential advertising, via automated processes that cannot be turned off—even for Apps for Education customers who elect not to receive ads. The company would not say whether those email scans are used to help build profiles of students or other Apps for Education users, but said the results of its data mining are not used to actually target ads to Apps for Education users unless they choose to receive them."
...
"Student-data-privacy experts contend that the latter claim is contradicted by Google’s own court filings in the California suit. They describe the case as highly troubling and likely to further inflame rising national concern that protection of children’s private educational information is too lax."
"Mr. Thiele said his district has used Google Apps for Education since 2008. Officials there have always been aware that the company does “back-end processing” of students’ email messages, he said, but the district’s agreement with Google precludes such data from being used to serve ads to students or staff members. As long as the company abides by those terms, Mr. Thiele said, “I don’t have any problem with it.” In an emailed statement provided to Education Week, Bram Bout, the director of Google Apps for Education, said that “ads in Gmail are turned off by default for Google Apps for Education and we have no plans to change that in the future.”"
...
"Those plaintiffs in the California lawsuit allege that Google treats Google Apps for Education email users virtually the same as it treats consumer Gmail users. That means not only mining students’ email messages for key words and other information, but also using resulting data—including newly created derivative information, or “metadata”—for “secret user profiling” that could serve as the basis for such activities as delivering targeted ads in Google products other than Apps for Education, such as Google Search, Google+, and YouTube."
"The plaintiffs allege that Google has employed such practices since around 2010, when it began using a new technology, known as Content Onebox, that allows the company to intercept and scan emails before they reach their intended recipients, rather than after messages are delivered to users’ inboxes, regardless of whether ads are turned off."
"While the allegations by the plaintiffs are explosive, it’s the sworn declarations of Google representatives in response to their claims that have truly raised the eyebrows of observers and privacy experts. Contrary to the company’s earlier public statements, Google representatives acknowledged in a September motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for class certification that the company’s consumer-privacy policy applies to Apps for Education users. Thus, Google argues, it has students’ (and other Apps for Education users’) consent to scan and process their emails."
"In November, Kyle C. Wong, a lawyer representing Google, also argued in a formal declaration submitted to the court in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification that the company’s data-mining practices are widely known, and that the plaintiffs’ complaints that the scanning and processing of their emails was done secretly are thus invalid. Mr. Wong cited extensive media coverage about Google’s data mining of Gmail consumer users’ messages, as well as the disclosures made by numerous universities to their students about how Google Apps for Education functions."