Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Microsoft Accesses Skype Chats

Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes alps6085 at gmail.com
Fri May 31 03:52:17 PDT 2013


Welcome to what Gilles Deleuze called " les sociétés de contrôle"

https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIus7lm_ZK0

BTW, as you can see, Youtube (also owned by Google) carries a message
decoding it.. Ergo, "they don't care." "It's not you - just your
information!" :-)
Best Regards | Cordiales Saludos | Grato,

Andrés L. Pacheco Sanfuentes
<alps at acm.org>
+1 (817) 271-9619


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Mark Ballard
<markjballard at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Google is not transparent about it.
>
> It started doing this with Gmail too. It didn't ask my permission. It
> didn't tell me what it was doing. If you click on a link from within
> one of your own personal emails, it opens via a Google redirect. Yes,
> Google already handles your mail. But you trust it not to pry. It
> transpires that this trust was misplaced. Google already, apparenty,
> serves adverts that match a content scan it has done of your personal
> communications. The question is where you would draw the line. And
> where Google has drawn the line. And whether you have any control over
> where the line goes at all.
>
> So this is just the half of it. Google has also started using search
> accounts, so when you log into Gmail it also logs you into search
> automatically. Thus your Google searches are tracked, and your links
> from Google searches are tracked, and a complete picture of your
> online activity is linked to you Google account.
>
> Add this to the scans it has taken of your personal emails, and it's
> demonstrated inclination to use your personal information in any way
> that suits its own interests, then you have in my opinion a thuggish
> intrusion of privacy.
>
> Google is behaving like a hoodlum with the run of the town. It has the
> power and the resources to take people's personal data. It has decided
> to use that power without any apparent regard for the personal space
> of its customers. Who decides what my personal boundaries are? Google
> does, apparenlty.
>
> I think it is instructive to imagine who Google thinks owns the
> behavioural information it gleans from your personal emails, your
> searches and your links from your searches and your mails. I would say
> it is my own business. Google thinks it owns that information.
>
> Google never told me it was tracking my behaviour. It never told me
> what it was doing with that data. It never asked my persmission.
>
> Perhaps Google doesn't keep the behavioural data it collects about
> people. It might treat the information as momentary - as transient as
> sand falling through its fingers - that it uses to sell advertising
> for that moment alone. Well then it wouldn't need to link my searches
> and browsing to my Google account, would it? But it does.
>
> Excuse me if this is common knowledge. Because it is news to me as a
> mere, powerless internet user - or Google user, as it has become.
>
> But the only reason why Google would need to link your browsing and
> searching to your Gmail account (and all the other behavioural and
> personal data therein) is to assemble a fixed and growing body of
> behavioural data about you as an individual. It constitutes a deep
> psychological profile - a computer mirror of your self. This
> information is what Google thinks it owns. This information that is
> the very stuff of you - the very soul of you. Google thinks it owns
> this information and that it can do what it likes with it. It is most
> amusing to say, but it is very serious indeed - and really, it is
> necessary to follow this line of reasoning to this point before
> drawing the obvious metaphors: but Google owns your soul, man.
>
> This state of affairs has become so serious that people now assume
> Google is already reading your personal communications, and that this
> is normal.
>
> As Kyle said: "Google doesn't claim that nobody can read your content,
> and it's fairly obvious even to casual users that Google can see what
> you're discussing".
>
> Woah there, boy. Refer your sorry ass to the metaphor favoured by Sir
> Tim Berner's Lee: when the Post Office handles my mail I work on the
> assumption that it does not open my letters and read them, or snoop on
> my chit-chat. This is called trust. I do not have that trust for
> Google. I did nevertheless once have this trust. And it is true that I
> invested this trust with Google. It is crucial to understand that
> Google relied on my investing that trust with it in order to get my
> business in the first place. Just like it relied on everyone's trust.
> That is why it has the virtual monopoly it has on search. It's success
> is a function of everyone's trust. I trusted Google not to scan my
> personal mails for their content, nor to track my behaviour. It has
> abused that trust.
>
> There is a very particular way in which people have accepted this
> abuse as normal, Kyle. That is, they have not necessarily deemed it
> acceptable. This is how abuses of power work. People think it's wrong
> but they also think they can't do anything about it. So it just passes
> for normal. Google violates your privacy because it can. You
> consequently become like chump citizen of a totalitarian state. You
> carry on under the oppressive knowledge that someone's notching up
> every step, every turn, every word. In psychic terms, you become a
> gimp. Your soul becomes a rag doll. What would Google do with it? Are
> there limits? Do you even know?
>
> If your assumed trust was initially that Google would not read your
> personal communications, and it abused that trust and snatched your
> personal data, then what now of your assumption that it can be trusted
> only to use that data in certain ways?
>
> You don't even know what Google does with your data, let alone what it
> might. This state of affairs has crept up. It is creepy. Google is a
> creepy, untrustworthy, totalitarian hoodlum who owns your soul.
>
> @markjballard
> --
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech



More information about the liberationtech mailing list