[pdkl95]

> You seem to think others are crazy for making the informed and conscious choice to use them.

While I question how "informed" those choices are, that wasn't my argument. I'm suggesting you're crazy for disregarding the pattern in Google's past behavior, that says that just like all their other products, they will eventually use it as a tool for mass collection of personal data ("spying"). To argue that this is not their intention is to ignore the years of public statements Google has made about how they operate.

If you want to use Google products anyway, that's your choice. Your opinion that they make useful products and services (they do) is entirely off topic. I was replying to the "...but that doesn't mean that's what they do.", which is about Google's behavior regarding spying on and recording personal information. Their past behavior says "that's what they do", even if the first version doesn't implement that part yet.

This is entirely about the reputation that Google - and only Google - has earned for themselves. BCBS and Target get to earn their on reputations, which is also off topic.

Anyway, I have better things to do than argue with trolls and/or fawning fans of spyware.

[VikingCoder]

> disregarding the pattern

To agree that it's a pattern, I'd have to agree that any single instance that you've listed is in fact "spying." Since I don't agree that any single instance is "spying," it is inaccurate to state that I'm "disregarding a pattern."

Would a personal secretary, paid to be going through my mail and email for me, sorting it, prioritizing it, making suggestions, be a "spy"? OF COURSE NOT.

Imagine I showed my secretary a text from my wife, reading, "Can we eat at Fogo de Chao, and then go see Mad Max?" I ask my secretary where the closest Fogo is, to help me book a reservation, and then to find showtimes and ratings for the movie. You'd call that "spying"?

> Anyway, I have better things to do than argue with trolls and/or fawning fans of spyware.

Someone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll or "fawning." They can't possibly have a reasonable position that disagrees with yours. Got it.

[eveningcoffee]

What if your secretary then goes and sells the interesting pieces of information to your competitors? What if your secretary shares your mail and emails with the government without your knowing? What if your secretary receives rewards from companies and other individuals to make subtle suggestions to you? What if your secretary has compiled a secret dossier about all your habits and little quirks and is ready to sell it to the highest bidder?

How does this sound?

[VikingCoder]

> What if your secretary then goes and sells the interesting pieces of information to your competitors?

I'm unaware of an analogous situation.

> What if your secretary shares your mail and emails with the government without your knowing?

The government spied on Google, much to their harm. They're the victim. Here's a typical Googler reaction:

https://plus.google.com/+KentonVarda/posts/DFQQH9sFQMJ

> What if your secretary receives rewards from companies and other individuals to make subtle suggestions to you?

In lieu of pay? If they're good suggestions, sounds good.

> What if your secretary has compiled a secret dossier about all your habits and little quirks and is ready to sell it to the highest bidder?

Without actually identifying me? Wow, sounds like she knows my preferences well, and is valuable in helping connect me with products I might want.

> How does this sound?

Like the cheapest, fastest, most effective secretary ever. Sign me up.

You act like I don't understand what Google does.

I understand you're uncomfortable with having an automatic secretary. Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending I don't understand the trade-offs I'm consciously making.

[eveningcoffee]

> I understand you're uncomfortable with having an automatic secretary.

It is a quite bold assumption and as such a wrong one. I am uncomfortable with a tool (any tool) over what I do not have control and whose main objective is to benefit somebody else at my expense (1). I am (well, would be) perfectly fine with a personal automatic secretary.

> Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending I don't understand the trade-offs I'm consciously making.

I do not think I was insulting you. But you are free to feel insulted.

I was just trying to extend the discussion that was driven in my option into too innocent looking direction and as such my reply was left mostly for a third random reader and not directly for you.

We could probably continue this discussion but I think that an intelligent and critically thinking readers can find counter arguments on their own.

But about conscious trade-off making, I find that you are assuming too much trust in a organism without ethics but with much power. I think that you are also assuming a status quo - that it would stay most profitable to continue to use information about you as it is (to your knowledge) used at the moment.

(1) as a small remark - I see that we are moving from an age of tools that were built to benefit the owner into age where the tools are built to exploit the owner and this raises the question of trust - not only that can I trust my computer or mobile phone but can I trust my thermostat or my fridge? How is the collected data about me used and will it actually benefit me or it would be actually in most of the time used against me (in the longer run).

[VikingCoder]

> I am uncomfortable with a tool (any tool) over what I do not have control and whose main objective is to benefit somebody else at my expense

Mortgage. Insurance. Credit Card.

You've rejected all of these things, or are you just picking on Google?

> assuming too much trust in a organism without ethics but with much power.

Organizations are made up of individuals. Like this:

https://plus.google.com/+KentonVarda/posts/DFQQH9sFQMJ

> I think that you are also assuming a status quo - that it would stay most profitable to continue to use information about you as it is (to your knowledge) used at the moment.

Yes, I think people are already very hard on Google, and that if they pushed the "creepy" factor too far, it would be massively harmful to them. I've seen people BLAME Google for being spied on by the NSA, for example.

[eveningcoffee]

I am sorry but I do not have much time to continue this discussion but you can investigate a different experience of the targeted adds http://www.thenation.com/article/208441/how-companies-turn-y...