Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ntakasaki 4362 days ago
>, 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.

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."

1 comments

I'm not sure if I care about people's surprise as much as I care about the inoffensiveness of it. People are and will continue to be surprised by technology. It's an inevitable consequence of technological acceleration.

Lots of companies have lots of data about me that is sensitive. So long as they do not betray said trust or suffer a security breach then I'm content with that state of affairs.

Not sure I am understanding you, but are you implying that it'd be okay for Microsoft to upload all your keystrokes and all your data on your laptop(without letting you know about it) on their servers and show you ads based on them as "long as they do not betray said trust or suffer a security breach" ? Where do you draw the line(if you draw one i.e) ? Or is MS somehow more evil than Google, so the same happening in Chromebooks is okay? Or is that "the inevitable consequence of technological acceleration" ?

Security breaches have already happened. http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-tee...

The funny thing is that they're not even obligated to tell you if someone who wasn't supposed to look at your data did so. It's likely that you wouldn't even know if Schmidt or Nadella read your email this morning and traded stocks based on the information in it and you'd have no legal claims.

> Not sure I am understanding you, but are you implying that it'd be okay for Microsoft to upload all your keystrokes and all your data on your laptop(without letting you know about it) on their servers and show you ads based on them as "long as they do not betray said trust or suffer a security breach" ?

This is a false equivalence. This is not what Google did, nor is it even on the same order of conceptual magnitude as what Google was accused of doing.

> The funny thing is that they're not even obligated to tell you if someone who wasn't supposed to look at your data did so.

We are in agreement that this is wrong.

> It's likely that you wouldn't even know if Schmidt or Nadella read your email this morning and traded stocks based on the information in it and you'd have no legal claims.

I suspect given the current political climate in America and the degree of difficulty Google is having with retention, this is not the case.

The problem with the song and dance of a principled company is that you tend to piss off employees that signed up based on that. And inevitably, that kind of activity will be exposed to employees at some point.