Google Defends Gmail Data Sharing, Gives Few Details on Violations (reuters.com) 26
Google defended how it polices third-party add-ons for Gmail in a letter to U.S. senators made public on Thursday, saying that upfront review catches the "majority" of bad actors. A report adds: Google said it uses automated scans and reports from security researchers to monitor third parties with access to Gmail data, but gave no details on how many add-ons have been caught violating its policies. Google's privacy practices have been under growing scrutiny. The Senate Commerce Committee has a hearing scheduled for Sept. 26 to question Google, Apple, AT&T, Twitter about their consumer data privacy practices. Gmail, the Google email service used by 1.4 billion people, enables add-on developers access to users' emails and the ability to share that data with other parties as "long as they are transparent" with users about how they are using data and get consent, Google said in the letter. For instance, a program that logs receipts could be allowed to scan Gmail as it searches for receipts.
Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Need those as well.
Re: (Score:2)
haHA (Score:2)
My only concern with that is mature YouTube video. Last I was aware they required an account.
Re: (Score:2)
It is my right to share with add-ins I choose (Score:3, Insightful)
A vital part of freedom is having the freedom to choose to trust whom or what you want to trust or to choose not to even care about privacy over service. If the government wants to get into the business of policing the add-ins, fine, though I personally feel that policing to catch crimes before they happen is an overreach of the Constitutional duties given to government. But policing has to be to detect a real crime. Do not limit what I can do for the purpose of protecting me from myself. That is a massive overreach.
Google, as the private business offering the API, does have a right to police how their product is used given that misuse could damage their business. They especially have the right to at least verify that the add-ins are correctly disclosing and are not violating their rules. But, I am the only one with the right to decide what level of privacy I'm willing to sacrifice to get services.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is disagreeing with that or saying there shouldn't be an API that allows you to knowingly chose to share all your email data with whoever you want. But just like the grocery store can't sell a bag chips without disclosing how many grams of fat are in it, so too should the person offering the API disclose clearly what data are shared, whether they are shared-onwards to third parties, whether they are persisted and how to remove yourself.
Maybe another way to put it is that you can't decide on what leve
Re: (Score:2)
In a free environment, a certain amount of risk must be allowed to exist. Otherwise, a back door to limiting freedoms opens up. If the requirements for enforcement become too costly, then the result will be the same as banning add-ins in the first place. If those costs are pushed to the add-in developers in some way, it furthermore results in unevenly banning add-ins because only larger-scale businesses could afford to attempt to enter the market. Regulations almost always favor large businesses by increasi
Remenber Facebook... (Score:2)
...and Cambridge Analytica? And here, Google freely *admits* to selling data! Which political party is going to squeal about this one?
An ad company (Score:2)
Well, shit (Score:2)
If Google is letting everyone with $$$$ access to my email account I'm tempted to switch to Protonmail. Problem is, Protonmail is a bit of a PITA compared to gmail, but if Alphabet is selling everything to whomever then fuck them, I can spend the extra couple minutes a day. Been using duckduck