MS Targets Google With Another Smear Campaign 513
walterbyrd writes with news that Microsoft's PR department has started a campaign to convince Gmail users that Google reads your personal emails, referring to Google's automated method of scanning emails for keywords to generate supposedly relevant advertising.
"The gist of the scare campaign is that Google is a scary, scary company that reads your private emails in order to send you targeted ads. 'Even if you don't use Gmail, if you send email to someone who does, Google goes through those emails to generate advertising revenue too,' Microsoft warns in material sent to reporters. Oh, and Microsoft points out that six class-action lawsuits have been filed against Google over this issue, and asks people to sign a petition 'to tell Google to stop going through your personal email messages.'"
I use neither Gmail nor Hotmail. (Score:4, Informative)
If I did, though, I would of course assume that everything sent via those services was pretty much public (not that anyone would care). But then, unencrypted email is never confidential anyway.
Microsoft Online Privacy? ... (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly the same way that Windows Live Hotmail does it
"We use your information to inform you of other products or services offered by Microsoft and its affiliates, and to send you relevant survey invitations related to Microsoft services." link [microsoft.com]
Re:Microsoft's solution to the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
This is just a subset of the basic rule: If a for-profit company is going to a lot of trouble to provide you a free service, the service is not the product, you are the product. Some examples: broadcast media, social networks, and hosted email.
Re:Speaking of "Smear Campaigns"... (Score:5, Informative)
Is it a "Smear Campaign" if it's true?
That's a big "if." In this case it isn't true: "Reading" implies a "person reading your email." Google parses email to place ads. But so what? So does Microsoft and every other Email provider on earth. They may be parsing it for a different reason, but they are doing the exact same thing. If parsing is "reading" then you'd have a point. But it isn't, so you don't. Parsing != to Reading. Or, to put it another way: If Google is "reading your email" at Gmail so is Microsoft at Office 365 Online, because all spam protection services parse email and microsoft advertises their Office 365 service as including excellent "Microsoft Forefront" security.
Re:Speaking of "Smear Campaigns"... (Score:5, Informative)
MS reads everything on your sky-net drive. Supposenly to their fair use rules. However if there is something bad on them you loose your account. (even if that that data is never shared)
Now who is evil....
Re:I left.... (Score:4, Informative)
Gmail does have two-factor authentication. You can even do it with an app and not have to purchase a dongle.
Re:Speaking of "Smear Campaigns"... (Score:5, Informative)
> Google DOES read your email, and we learned from the Patreus affair that access to that email is handed over without a warrant as well.
> Are we living in a police state yet?
Equating the two is about as disingenuous as the MS campaign, and painting Google as the state patsy in comparison to MS is equally dishonest.
First, showing contextual ads based on e-mails and handing over e-mails to the state have nothing to do with each other. MS hands over e-mails to - the only difference is that they don't fight against it.
Google fighting against state censorship in China and against invasion of privacy in the U.S. probably doesn't go far enough for you, but MS doesn't fight against them at all. In fact, when Google was fighting China, MS say it as an opportunity to gain some market share by agreeing to do the stuff that Google was fighting.
Pot Meet Kettle (Score:5, Informative)
Has anyone looked at the Privacy link at the bottom of the login screen for outlook.com?
http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
Quoting here: "Uses of Information: Additional Details
We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising.
We use your information to inform you of other products or services offered by Microsoft and its affiliates, and to send you relevant survey invitations related to Microsoft services.
We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties. In order to help provide our services, we occasionally provide information to other companies that work on our behalf."
So they can personalize content and advertising, send you offers, and provide it to other companies.
s/Google Mail/outlook.com/ and the claims appear to be the same.
Re:Speaking of "Smear Campaigns"... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Speaking of "Smear Campaigns"... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft suggests that Google employees are actively reading your mail, which is not true.
Software sifts through the mail to automate ads based upon context. No one at Google is actually looking at your private data.
Microsoft's Outlook.com has contextual ads as well. Telling people that Outlook is somehow better than Gmail in this regard is nothing short of a lie.
It should also be noted that Google has fought governments to protect private data from their users. But Microsoft handed over IP addresses tied to search terms to the government without a warrant. They have a patent on how to best sell your private data to third parties via auction. Microsoft's track record on privacy is pretty poor for them to start throwing stones.
Re:Speaking of "Smear Campaigns"... (Score:5, Informative)
You can pay for paid Google services that don't include ads.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/enterprise/apps/business/ [google.com]
Re:Speaking of "Smear Campaigns"... (Score:4, Informative)
My email providers don't. They don't because I pay them a small fee for the service.
"Read" doesn't imply a person. It's quite clear in the summary what is meant. MS is certainly being hypocritical, but that doesn't mean Google is a good guy.
Re:A Smear Campaign Is a Smear Campaign (Score:4, Informative)
Prying into? Do you mean seeing what web pages you were hitting and such? That's nothing short of bullshit.
They drove around and saw how many wireless networks there were and wrote down ESSIDs, the publicly broadcasted name of the network.
So they collected publicly broadcasted data at the same time they were rumored to be considering launching a wireless internet service to see how feasible it was.
They were asked if someone had an unsecured wireless network, and if they were typing passwords on an unsecured website at the same time that someone was network sniffing, would it be possible for someone to see that data and Google said yes. People didn't understand what that meant and misinterpreted it (or intentionally twisted it) to portray snooping, when responsible journalists should be educating people.
Secure your wifi, and never input sensitive data into a website that isn't using SSL.
Re:Speaking of "Smear Campaigns"... (Score:5, Informative)
Kind of a forced scenario there. Why can't we have good e-mail without advertisements as an option? Google's service is fine, and understanding their ToS means you understand you're going to have ads; that's the nature of the net right now. Doesn't mean you have to like it and that we must comply with this model.
GMail supports IMAP. Which doesn't have ads.
Re:Saw an ad on ABC last night with my wife (Score:5, Informative)
Not that I care, it's a post-privacy society, get over it.
Re:Saw an ad on ABC last night with my wife (Score:2, Informative)