CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
They're not really using the information to find out about our private lives, they are just counting types of words to determine what interests are for ad purposes.
Google is just using an algorithm to pick up key words. It's similar to your email provider "reading" your emails to detect spam. A real person isn't actually reading your emails.
That argument would not hold up for any other category involving privacy. For example "Im going to look through all of your internet history, I'm not going to tell anybody what I saw, I just want to check it out" or "I'm going to go through your house and touch everything you own, I won't take anything, I just want to". Both of those, especially the second would be a big invasion of privacy, and regardless of the reasons for invading privacy in this manner it imo is unethical
Good point, but Google is not going to do that. Most likely there will be a system that filters out words and phrases that share similarities to the type of thing Ads would say.
It still feels a little sketchy for them to be parsing through emails. Even if their intentions are solely for ad purposes what determines if they can be trusted or not?
While they aren't having someone explicitly look through them, the emails are still being searched, and could contain private info, even if it is only used for ads.
there is a fundamental difference between "parsing" and "reading". The computer parses the email and chunks it into relational data that is associated with marketable phrases and relevant ads.
Since it isn't read by a human and the data is transient, i don't see a problem with it.
No-one is forcing you to have a gmail, you could cancel it... or you could opt-out of part of their ad service. Although that requires figuring out how to :(
This is a good point. Taking this logic further, Google posed the counter-argument: “Automated scanning lets us provide Gmail users with security and spam protection, as well as great features like Priority Inbox.”
If you don't want Google examining the contents of your emails, then how would you justify any other automated services based on email content? That might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it's a compelling argument.
Although it may hurt their source of information, more information on opting out would allow them to provide the services as well as giving the privacy people might want at the same time.
Before signing up for gmail, you agreed to their Terms of Service. If you weren't comfortable with the statements outlined in this document you shouldn't have created your gmail account. In fact, if you are so outraged by the situation, gmail is a free service offered to the public... don't use it.
The privacy statement of gmail's TOS explicitly states they will use content of gmail's service which you view to display ads. The policies explain that content you access over gmail's service is not your own. This can be extended to incloude emails from non-gmail users that you view while signed into gmail. See below for the exact language used by google.
Information we collect We collect information to provide better services to all of our users – ... to more complex things like which ads you’ll find most useful or the people who matter most to you online.
---
It is not explicitely stated 'how' gmail will use the content to provide customized ads but the legal requirements permitting them to do so is in their TOS.
Furthermore, consider ads are a major source of revenue for google, how they determine what ads to show you can be considered a trade secret. In this case, of course they are not going to tell users how they perform this act because if they did competitors could follow suit and steal their idea.
Thus it makes logical sense such an explicit definition of how the information to display ads is not part
The privacy statement of gmail's TOS explicitely states they will use content of gmail's service which you view to display ads. Furthermore the policies explain that content you access over gmail's service is not your own. This can be extended to incloude emails from non-gmail users that you view while signed into gmail. See below for the exact language used by google.
Information we collect We collect information to provide better services to all of our users – ... to more complex things like which ads you’ll find most useful or the people who matter most to you online.
---
It is not explicitely stated 'how' gmail will use the content to provide customized ads but the legal requirements permitting them to do so is in their TOS.
Furthermore, consider ads are a major source of revenue for google, how they determine what ads to show you can be considered a trade secret. In this case, of course they are not going to tell users how they perform this act because if they did competitors could follow suit and steal their idea.
Thus it makes logical sense such an explicit definition of how the information to display ads is not part of their TOS. But a broader definition is present in its absence which covers this situation.
I apoligize for not adding the exact language from the TOS in my first comment, it is added now.. This information can be found if you took the time to examine gmails privacy and policy documents.
No one reads the ToS and everyone knows it. Also, an issue is that even if you don't have a gmail account and you email someone who does the email gets dissected by google. So even though you have not agreed to have your emails read it will happen regardless depending on who you email.
'Other' users emails either sent by you to non-gmail or received by you from non-gmail accounts are covered by their policies document. This are part of the 'content' which you access and prescribe you have no ownership of by using gmail's service. Thus the content then becomes covered under what information they collect that is used for the purpose of ads. Yes the language is broad in google's documents, but if you read carefully it covers the case you have mentioned.
Not reading the TOS doesn't mean you aren't bound by it.
Google is like a big brother, it would never hurt us! Google has a very in depth code of ethics that is designed not only to protect themselves but the users as well.
"Google is like a big brother". Big Brother... '1984'. Wow... just wow. (If you have read the book '1984' you will understand what I am saying). You are assuming that people never break ethical codes, and if that were true we would not have a Professional Responsiblities class.
This argument uses the fallacy of appeal to authority. Can you point us to the code of ethics that Google uses, or somehow demonstrate how their accessing of our information is legitimate through their code? And, more importantly, how if at all does their code correspond to the SE Code of Ethics as laid out by IEEE?
My post may not have good logic, but it isn't an example of an appeal to authority. If you understood what that fallacy meant, you'd understand that an appeal to authority would be more akin to saying that Google is ethical reading emails because it isn't illegal by US law. Served.
Not always. Regardless of whether you use gmail or not, you have no way to opt out of Google examining your emails when they are received by an opted-in gmail-using recipient.
Someday I hope to be able to cache my own memories with Google's services. Google makes good products (Google+ is an exception to the rule) so we should recognize that Google is ethical in everything they do, including reading our Gmails.
Unfortunately, a lot of users believe that they're entitled to a free service, such as Gmail. The problem is, these services cost money. Google has to pay for development, servers, etc. Not to mention, Google is a business, and businesses need to make money.
In order to offer Gmail as a free service, it has to use targeted ads to generate revenue. The thought of Google "reading" our e-mails is unnerving, but the fact of the matter is its a program, not a person, and it is entirely opt-in.
Being an opt-in service, Google can do whatever it wants. Nobody is forcing you to use Gmail, and if you're uncomfortable with the idea of software analyzing your emails for keywords, you are free to use a different service.
I wouldn't call it "opt-in" since the privacy-infringing settings are default. You're correct in asserting that concerned users are not forced to use Google services. However, users aren't told that the contents of their emails are being examined. They are opted-in by default. This is deceptive and an infraction of users' expectations of privacy.
I agree. If I'm using a service, I want to know what the consequences are to me as a result. There is nothing in the privacy policy or terms of service stating that my email will be parsed and personalized ads generated due to my email content.
A major sector of revenue for google is ads. Thus certain practices related to how they make this revenue can be considered trade secrets. Therefore there is no reasonable expectation to disclose how the ads are generated. Furthermore the method used to generate ads can be considered intellectual property of google, adding further justification for not revealing details.
It's not a secret that google makes a lot of it's money through advertisements. I would even go so far as saying that it is fairly common knowledge that google's displayed ads are reflective of someone's searches and interests. However including something in the terms of use of gmail about this would at least inform people of what they were getting into, and i don't see how it would help google's competition or reveal any real trade secrets.
With an argument like this, any free service gives the corresponding business the right to do anything it wants to with the service in order to make money. The way the first paragraph is phrased it seems like it is saying "businesses need to make money, so damn anyone or anything that gets in the way of that. Is privacy important, yeah, but businesses need money so forget it. Is freedom from slavery important, yeah, but businesses need to make money and they can make more if they have free labor" (im escalating to make a point). Basically, what I am trying to say is being a business that needs to make money does not allow for being free to do whatever it takes to get money.
Why does the matter in which Google generates its revenue to provide this service matter at all? If they can't support their service in an ethical fashion then they shouldn't offer it at all.
You have the right to be concerned with how they use your information, but you're not entitled to any input on how it is used.
Google does not force you to use its services. If you disagree with how they use your information, it is your right to "speak with your wallet" and choose a competing service.
While this may be true, Google as a software service provider is ethically obligated to act on behalf of the public's best interest. (See section 1 of the IEEE/ACM SE Code of Ethics) Included in this is addressing matters of grave public concern.
Although Google scan emails for relevant ad content, their "security procedures strictly limit access to and use of users’ personal information, and require that each of us take measures to protect user data from unauthorized access." The data is not used for harm and users know about it.
While I personally don't take issue with Google accessing small portions of data for account personalization and advertising, I think they should be more transparent in their efforts. As I've mentioned in other posts, it seems wrong for Google to gain access by default and rely on the user to go in and turn access off if they so desire.
Even if you were worried about people who did have limited access to what personal emails you have; opting out let's you receive the benefits of the service as well as not giving up the information's you want to keep private.
Although the benefits do seem to outweigh the cons, it's would be good to know exactly what the benefits of contributing to the service would provide; either way, opting out is always an option too.
By scanning our emails, Google does provide some benefits apart from the interest generated ads such as better spam filters; however they should be more transparent on what they actually do with the information, so people have more information before choosing to simply opt out.
Very well said. If it's not a direct part of their terms of service and if express consent is not given, then the content of the emails is being accessed in a way which violates the user's right to privacy.
Google was also found to not have explicit consent from Gmail users as well (there is nothing specific in their Terms of Service or Privacy Policy about automatic scanning), but I think there is a stronger case for the privacy of non-Gmail users.
it's imposible to sent a mail without reading it first, it's like trying to make a photocopy of something without seeing the original. All is it just advert on Microsoft's Outlook.com which does exactly same. .
It is not explicitly stated 'how' gmail will use the content to provide customized ads but what if google considered that information a trade secret or their own intellectual property?
Thus it makes logical sense it isn't present. I would assume gmail's lawyers thought of this but it was shot down. I would be curious to know why/how.
Google's privacy policy (http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/ privacy/) does not disclose that Google parses the content of user's emails. Because this behavior is not disclosed in the privacy policy, users of Google's email service have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the service. It is thus unethical for Google to examine the contents of emails delivered using their service.
Yes, I feel like this is the key point. Although they mention collecting data for ads, it is not explicitly mentioned and therefore people can reasonably expect their email's content to b private.
Google isn't "watching." There is no person reading your emails, judging you on what you did last night or tattling about something you did wrong. Its just a program that parses your messages and looks for keywords.
If they want to modify their parsing program in a meaningful way, they're going to have to have a human look at the input it's taking and output it's generating. If they want to test it as best as possible they're going to want to use legitimate input, e.g. actual emails. What better testing input is there to use than the massive userbase that Gmail has? There is no guarantee that a human is reading my emails but there's no guarantee that one isn't, either.
Emails should be treated like letters. If I send a letter to the post office I expect that it will be delievered to the recipient un-opened and un-read.
Email is not a letter, to be send must be read by email server and send as a signal to other one where it will be read by destination server... every email service works same.
It looks like they tried to cover it with broad statements in the terms and privacy agreements, that users agreed to -- but the terms were too broad to be applicable.
Google's interest-based ads are turned on by default. While it is good that they give the user the ability to opt-out, if they so choose, it doesn't seem ethical to turn this setting on by default. A user may not be fully aware that Google is parsing their emails for advertising by default.
Especially for new Gmail users they should at least bring up a little pop-up telling them how to opt-out of personalized ads when they sign up for their account.
Users of Google software have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Google has routinely violated that privacy simply for the sake of increasing their own profits.
Many banks offer free online services. Is it unreasonable to assume some degree of privacy when using those services/websites? Regardless of the means through which it is conveyed and sent, our information is both personal and confidential. There's a reason why it's a felony to open up another person's mail, and email should be no different.
Bank services are not truly "free" though. Users have accounts with that bank, and they're likely paying a service fee attached to their account. Or, if there is no service fee, the bank is generating revenue from the money users have invested in the bank.
The question is whether Google is ethical "reading" our emails. I understand they are parsed by a computer. But that isn't the question. The question should be worded differently if this is not what it is intending.
Because you don't own the content of which you access over gmail (see their policy statements) their is no requirement here. That seems like a bad policy if you ask me, but that is how they worded the documents you accepted to use gmail's service.
However, in exceptional circumstances Google can be properly authorized by a government authority to investigate our e-mail metadata. Google could then falsify their intent towards using this data similar to the NSA's tracking of U.S. citizens' locations. Therefore, no one can be trusted since anything is possible!!!
This sounds like an argument under the fourth Amendment. Google is not a legal entity, and therefore does not have any sort of pertinent relationship to the Fourth Amendment. Google can, however, be subpoenaed by a legal authority to present such information in the event that legality is an issue.
Google reading our emails is an invasion of privacy. Regardless of how they use it, one is entitled to private conversations between the emails recipients and themselves.
Apparently there was a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling in 1979 of Smith vs. Maryland that said citizens "lose their right to privacy" whenever they hand personal documents over to third parties.
I don't think the parsing of email in itself is unethical, I think the fact that there is no mention of this anywhere in the ToS, yet still happening, is unethical. If Google is going to have access to and use your information it should be disclosed in the ToS.
For something like parsing the content of email, something that the average user expects to be private, they need to get some form of explicit consent. Since it is never specifically mentioned, they do not have that consent from the users and as such should not be parsing this data.
Not necessarily requesting consent, but informing users that their information could be scanned and used for whatever reasons as well as informing users how to opt out at the same time.
Scanning our emails for any purpose is unethical as we have the right to have our mail be private. Whether it be for Google's own ads or any other purpose.