On 11 Jan 2006 14:52:36 -0800, Lena <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> tanstafl wrote:
>> Be aware that your gigs of Gmail is subject to general purpose data
>> mining and/or any other use they deem lucrative upon a simple
>> unilateral change in their terms of service.
> I feel SO threatened. Guess I'll make sure not to use gmail for any
> of my illegal activities. They DO have a DELETE button, don't they?
Indeed they do. And when you press it: POOF it's gone - from your
view :-( However, your mail is still on their backup servers. Their
announced practice (circa 2004) is to allow the data to purge over
time as the generational media expire. As long as that practice
remains in effect you can chill out and not feel 'so' threatened --
some but not 'so'.
The problem with a business practice is that it can be changed at any
time without notice -- you and I can assume they still have that same
practice, but we don't know. If that practice were to change, 'so'
would be quite appropriate since the only reason for change would be
the onset of data mining (in point of fact, mining could commence
without permanently storing your mail).
This isn't a diatribe against Google. One of their guiding mottos is
'don't be evil'. I've not seen a case where Google has been caught
with their hand in the cookie jar -- so they have the benefit of the
doubt. Real Networks is evil, Doubleclick is evil, but not Google --
yet. Data mining, enriched by the contents of person mail, can build
personal dossiers that have enormous economic value. The business
case is compelling. When they do, will that be evil? To me,
certainly. To a corporate executive, the driving ethic is to maximize
value and revenue -- failure to do so is evil. Viewpoint is
everything -- and we need to guide our decisions and practices
An interesting observation is those who do not value their privacy --
tend to treat those who do derisively. Your attempt at sarcasm,
exemplified by 'illegal activities' betrays your failure to grasp that
many non-criminals simply value their privacy.
Back to Sam. As a professional journalist, I'm sure he would walk the
plank to jail rather than betray the confidence of a source. Yet, he
sees nothing wrong with using his 2GB Gmail account as archival
storage for his (your) email. After all it's free ... right? TANSTAAFL.
Sam doesn't understand. You don't understand (apparently).
-- Pete Gebel pfgebel(deletethis)@crisperiodcom
Have the best day possible -- all things considered