Not really, as zeckalpha pointed out, this is quoted out of context and was talking about OpenText:
"The difference between Google's advertisements and OpenText's is Google (usually) identifies advertisements as advertisements."
Also, Google results have gotten significantly better than they were in 1998 so even if we ignore the OpenText context, I don't see how this could be a successful prediction as you're trying to imply.
Why is this anti Google propaganda? I can't see a single point that is not reasonable enough on its own merit, and none of them applies to Google alone, but to all search engine providers.
First and foremost it's off-topic. Second, these are the same citations used by those who were pushing for the FTC to sue Google for antitrust, so they have political baggage, third: it's before the company was founded so it's all academic and theoretical with no actual experience behind it, fourth: context matters - choice quotes from long texts have been used for Google bashing before, some earlier this week even.
Being before or after the company was founded, being 10 years ago or today, has absolutely no bearing on whether what was said is right or not. Experience != truth, just having experience doesn't mean what you say is more likely to be right. The theoretical can be right or wrong. You haven't proven your argument at all.
For the umpteenth time to the umpteenth submission, this is not true, Google never said that: sections of this legal motion have been deliberately taken out of context to mislead readers.
If anything that quote is about non-Gmail users and even then it’s in response to a certain aspect of the complaint.
The lawyer cited a 1979 precedent (as lawyers wont to do) to counter a specific allegation:
“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over tothird parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979).
The whole case is built on trying to make physical mail (snail mail) analogies applicable to email, and Google’s lawyer is counter-arguing accordingly. They are accusing Google of "reading" emails when it's computers "parsing" text, that particular part of the motion is in response to the argument that non-Gmail users class action is valid since they didn't agree to the TOS, Google counters the mail providers’ "automated processes" are analogous to assistants that are allowed to open mail for their employers (the recipient). The "third parties" here aren't necessarily Google but the recipients of your email who happen to be using Gmail. As since you've turned over your information voluntarily to the email recipient they can apply “automatic processing” to it.
The case is about Gmail "scanning" emails to target ads, Google is arguing (rightly so) that machines parsing emails is not equivalent to "reading" it, and that "automated processes" are necessary for spam filtering, full-text search, etc.
Shame on the guardian for publishing this (although it's their dubious tech section), the author evidently haven't read the motion, consulted a lawyer or bother to ask Google for comment.
This is like the 10th submission of this nonsense: sections of this legal motion have been deliberately taken out of context to mislead readers.
If anything that quote is about non-Gmail users and even then it’s in response to a certain aspect of the complaint.
The lawyer cited a 1979 precedent (as lawyers wont to do) to counter a specific allegation:
“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over tothird parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979).
The whole case is built on trying to make physical mail (snail mail) analogies applicable to email, and Google’s lawyer is counter-arguing accordingly. They are accusing Google of "reading" emails when it's computers "parsing" text, that particular part of the motion is in response to the argument that non-Gmail users class action is valid since they didn't agree to the TOS, Google counters the mail providers’ "automated processes" are analogous to assistants that are allowed to open mail for their employers (the recipient). The "third parties" here aren't necessarily Google but the recipients of your email who happen to be using Gmail. As since you've turned over your information voluntarily to the email recipient they can apply “automatic processing” to it.
The case is about Gmail "scanning" emails to target ads, Google is arguing (rightly so) that machines parsing emails is not equivalent to "reading" it, and that "automated processes" are necessary for spam filtering, full-text search, etc.
That was significantly informative. Thanks for the context. I actually was about to delete my submission as you mention it's been posted previously and while I personally didn't realize that, I'd prefer not to contribute to the decline of HN. Anyway, I missed the deletion window, but hopefully more will see your comment to provide context.
What is really troubling is how many outlets are picking that piece of propaganda as is, with no attempt to even look at the source - both the original text of the motion the people who are spreading the misinformation.
Wow, talk about taking things out of context, but I guess this is what you get from "consumer watchdog" via RT.
The "quote" in question is that of a lawyer citing a previous ruling (they do that a lot) to counter a specific allegation:
“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over tothird parties.”
Smith v. Maryland,
442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979).
The whole case is built on trying to make physical mail (snail mail) analogies applicable to email, they are accusing Google of "reading" emails when it's computers "parsing" text. That particular part of the motion is in response to the argument that non-Gmail users class action is valid since they didn't agree to the TOS. Google counters that "automated processing" is part of webmail.
It's either the author have never seen a court briefing before or he’s just pushing an agenda.
The case is about Gmail "scanning" emails to target ads, Google is arguing (rightly so) that machines parsing emails is not equivalent to "reading" it, and that "automated processes" are responsible for spam filtering, spell checking and other features.
Edit: I've also found the PR from consumer watchdog, they are intentionally removing the distinction between the lawyer's words and the citation, which exposed their propaganda:
Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their emails are processed by the recipient’s [email provider] in the course of delivery. Indeed, ‘a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties
Actual document:
Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’sassistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient’s ECS provider in the course of delivery. Indeed,“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over tothird parties.”
Smith v. Maryland,
442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979).
Even then it's just an out of context portion, of a bigger section of a bigger case.
Wow, talk about taking things out of context, but I guess this is what you get from "consumer watchdog" via RT.
The "quote" in question is that of a lawyer citing a previous ruling (they do that a lot) to counter a specific allegation:
“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over tothird parties.”
Smith v. Maryland,
442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979).
The whole case is built on trying to make physical mail (snail mail) analogies applicable to email, they are accusing Google of "reading" emails when it's computers "parsing" text. That particular part of the motion is in response to the argument that non-Gmail users class action is valid since they didn't agree to the TOS. Google counters that "automated processing" is part of webmail.
It's either the author have never seen a court briefing before or he’s just pushing an agenda.
The case is about Gmail "scanning" emails to target ads, Google is arguing (rightly so) that machines parsing emails is not equivalent to "reading" it, and that "automated processes" are responsible for spam filtering, spell checking and other features.
I'll avoid making a comment of how NSA talk is hijacking every thread, but I'll attempt to correct your misgivings:
Google's primary business is advertising, meaning that like the publishers of yore they sell "space", now with the advent of technology that "space" gets populated with what the algos determine to be the best suitable ad according to data about the would be viewer of said ad. They don't 'sell their users to advertisers', they offer them a dashboard with which they supply the content of the advertisement, choose the interests they want to target, and measure the effectiveness of it all. Advertisers do not get exposed to user data - they deal with abstractions.
The point is, Google isn't just "selling space." They collect the data about you, admitting themselves that they prefer to never delete anything. The key word is "targeting," remember? In process, they still know more about you than your mother or partner. Somewhere in their guts, there is a collection of data about you, the depth of it not even imaginable before.
That is a pretty big downgrade in rhetoric on your side: first you were claiming that their business is "surveillance", and that they "sell their users to advertisers" and now that you know better you try to shift the argument to data collection?!
The bottom line is that more data makes better apps, and yes, better ads.
I doubt they know you better than "your mother or partner" because I don't know how to measure that (it's an anecdotal, and a fear mongering thing to say).
They collect whatever you allow them to, and they provide ample means of transparency and control. Not to mention the usefulness of their services.
You're completly misinterpreting what I write. I still agree with Schneier that the main mode of their current business is surveillance.
And we slowly got accustomed to it, noticing less and less. The process of it is described by Moxie in the video I've linked to. Do try to watch and think about it.
Btw, it seems this article was flagged to death. Google seems to be sacred here.
Seems the author is suffering from fanboyism induced blindness.
The main points made about Android that make it great have little to do with Google: the ability to set default apps, intent sharing between apps, notifications, customised launchers, etc. Also in the referenced post the Android user describes rolling his own solutions with Bittorrent Sync: http://paulstamatiou.com/android-is-better
Somehow OP glossed all over that and shifted the discussion to a troll baiting exercise. The truth is that whether you're wed to Google's services or to Apple's you're make certain tradeoffs, but one key difference remains is that you can be a Google user on the iPhone which puts them ahead in my opinion.
Also I don't buy the disingenuous argument that since Apple is less adequate at services they are somehow better at privacy - more data makes better apps.
