Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud Google Businesses Privacy IT

Are You OK With Google Reading Your Data? (infoworld.com) 154

Remember when Google randomly flagged files in Google Docs for violating its terms of service? An anonymous reader quotes InfoWorld: Many people worried that Google was scanning users' documents in real time to determine if they're being mean or somehow bad. You actually agree to such oversight in Google G Suite's terms of service. Those terms include personal conduct stipulations and copyright protection, as well as adhering to "program policies"... Even though this is spelled out in the terms of service, it's uncomfortably Big Brother-ish, and raises anew questions about how confidential and secure corporate information really is in the cloud.

So, do SaaS, IaaS, and PaaS providers make it their business to go through your data? If you read their privacy policies (as I have), the good news is that most don't seem to. But have you actually read through them to know who, like Google, does have the right to scan and act on your data? Most enterprises do a good legal review for enterprise-level agreements, but much of the use of cloud services is by individuals or departments who don't get such IT or legal review. Enterprises need to be proactive about reading the terms of service for cloud services used in their company, including those set up directly by individuals and departments. It's still your data, after all, and you should know how it is being used and could be used...

The article argues that "Chances are you or your employees have signed similar terms in the many agreements that people accept without reading."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are You OK With Google Reading Your Data?

Comments Filter:
  • No (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04, 2017 @11:42AM (#55489311)

    Source: Ian Betteridge

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04, 2017 @12:10PM (#55489467)

      Google has done a lot of good for the world, but also a lot of bad. It needs to be put into check, and that can only happen if users hold it to account and hit it in the pocketbook. That means if anyone really cares about this, they need to cut off the ability of Google to monetize them. Of course, that does NOT mean going to Microsoft or some other equally-dubious company. Pick strong, private alternatives.

      1. Get away from Gmail. Use a privacy-friendly alternative e-mail service like Startmail or ProtonMail. Yes, you will probably have to pay. You are either paying cash or paying with your data.

      2. Break off Google search. Use DuckDuckGo to keep your searches private. If you want Google results, use Startpage instead; it will search Google privately on your behalf, preventing it from monetizing you.

      3. Ditch Chrome. If you love the UI, then use the open source Chromium instead. Otherwise use Firefox (which is about to get a LOT better with the new overhaul debuting later this month) or Brave. Use your browser with ad blockers like Disconnect, uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus and Privacy Badger to stop Google and others from serving you tracking ads.

      4. If you use an Android, consider running CopperheadOS on your phone. It is built on Android code, but hardened for security and free of Google data mining.

      5. Say no to Google cloud storage services. If you want a high security option, use SpiderOak. Otherwise, you can use Boxcryptor to locally encrypt your files before sending them to the cloud so that they cannot be data mined.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Emphasis on uBlock Origin . Do not use regular uBlock that pops up in searches, it's dodgy to say the least.

      • by fermion ( 181285 )
        It is naive to think anyone who uses a computer can get away from Google without expending an impractical amount of effort and money. It is also unreasonable to think that Google is the problem, not the structure of the free services on the internet. What is reasonable is to weight the risks and benefits of the services we use. To apply the popular car analogy, not everyone pays for a car that is build for security because the benefits for a particular person may not be that great. For instance, a car t
        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Google makes all of it's money from all over the web and investments in many other companies. So what, that does not mean you can not give them a swift ole kick in the balls by crippling one of their business interests. Unhappy wildly out of control invasives and built in tools to mass deleted what ever the fucking hell it wants too, than simply stop using google docs. So what about the rest, enough people stop and google will feel their balls right up the back of their throat in that one business, bye bye

        • It is naive to think anyone who uses a computer can get away from Google without expending an impractical amount of effort and money.

          Bullshit.
          I ditched Google for Duckduckgo.com and that's it.
          Minimal effort.

      • For alternative browser, also consider Vivaldi.

        Chromium-based but different UI, very configurable, with option for status bar, separate search box, much of the user-has-control philosophy of old-school Firefox. From the some of the original founders and developers of Opera, with much of its design flexibility but none of the now-Chinese company. No Operas services. Uses the Chrome web store, not the sketchy Opera one.

        Win, Mac, Linux. Unlike Chrome still supports 32-bit as well as 64-bit, so there's a fully-

      • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday November 04, 2017 @05:48PM (#55490523)

        Or I could just stick with Google, and realise that their not only monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange. I give them my words for better translation. I give them my schedule for better predictive alerts. I give them my location in exchange for better navigation systems and more relevant local search results.

        I could just ditch them. I could also go back to living in a cave. I could do a lot of things, but I won't.

        For better or worse I trust Google with my information as I know it is in their best financial interest to keep that information private. If they sell that information they lose the ability to continuously monetize it. Their corporate agenda aligns with my idea that my information should only be shared in a limited way.

        The same can not be said for a company who's primary source of income is a physical product. They don't have much of an incentive to keep my data private.

        • by vux984 ( 928602 )

          "If they sell that information they lose the ability to continuously monetize it."

          Think about what that actually means.

          " monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange."

          At the end of the year, there is less money in your bank account. That is the service they provide you.

          'better translation', 'predictive alerts', 'location' ... all so that they can sell access to you to someone who wants to sell you something you didn't need, targeted to you. To plant a seed to buy it.

          • Think about what that actually means.

            I did. That's how I got to the conclusion that they are interested in keeping my data safe rather than most other companies (see ISPs) who will happily sell it.

            At the end of the year, there is less money in your bank account. That is the service they provide you.

            Please, do enlighten me. How is there less money in my bank account as a result of this? I struggle to see how I am better off financially paying money to get a private email service, paying money for a company that has to spend a fortune on R&D to get datasets to improve their systems, and paying more taxes so my local government can augment the

            • by vux984 ( 928602 )

              " (Side note: I trust Google with my location data more than the government)."

              That's cute.

              "You are incredibly weak minded."

              If you think advertising doesn't work on people, or that it only works on the 'incredibly weak minded', and above all if you think that it doesn't work on you, then you are delusional.

              Its far more sensible to assume that it does work on you, in ways you aren't immediately cognizant of. After all practically nobody sees an add for a new car with a sunroof and immediately heads out to buy

              • That's cute.

                Wow, look out people. Someone has some mind blowing arguments here.

                If you think advertising doesn't work on people, or that it only works on the 'incredibly weak minded', and above all if you think that it doesn't work on you, then you are delusional.

                No I'm actually in marketing. Advertisement provides two distinct emotional responses in people. One works to make someone attracted to a concept, that only works on the truly weak minded if you don't already have a pre-existing desire. E.g. You could see an advertisement for sharp knives right now, chances are it will have zero effect on you. Just like an advertisement for Coke just after you down a gallon of water.

                The other kind of respons

                • by vux984 ( 928602 )

                  "The other kind of response people have are to direct their attention to a specific product within their existing desires. E.g. You're thirsty, the advert will likely make you drink Coke instead of say Pepsi."

                  I'm sure you already know all this, since you're actually in marketing...

                  Most people have more abstract pre-existing desires than 'I'm thirsty... I need a drink'. Stuff like "I want to be successful. I want to fit in. I want to be happy. I want to be healthy. I want to be secure. I want to be loved. I

        • by Dr. Evil ( 3501 )

          I don't see how this is different than saying "I have nothing to hide"

          • Then you fail to understand the fundamental point of my post. I do have something to hide, but at the same time I trust that it is hidden in some insanely huge database within Google and that the things I have to hide won't be sold off to third parties. I don't have the same trust in e.g. Microsoft as keeping my personal data to themselves is not their core business and there's no major profit motive preventing them from selling this to third parties.

            • by Dr. Evil ( 3501 )

              So you're saying Microsoft, because they sell the service as a product is more likely to expose your information than Google, who sells your information as a product.

              It's so illogical to me that I thought you were arguing that you had nothing to hide. No... I don't get it.

              • No I'm saying precisely the opposite. Microsoft's core business is not your data so they have no inherent interest in keeping your data safe. To them it's just a value added side benefit.

                Google on the other hand sells services based entirely on your data. For them it's like the recipe to Coke. If they sold it to third parties they lose all power.

                I'm not sure if I could make this any simpler so if you don't understand that line of thought then don't bother replying.

        • by mjwx ( 966435 )

          Or I could just stick with Google, and realise that their not only monetizing my data has provided countless improvements in my life in exchange. I give them my words for better translation. I give them my schedule for better predictive alerts. I give them my location in exchange for better navigation systems and more relevant local search results.

          This, I know that Google is using my data for profit. I also know Microsoft and Apple are doing the exact same thing but are being less open about it.

          Google has always been honest that they're in the business of selling data, but they've also been the only ones to give us some solid reassurance that the data is anonymised before being sold on. They state this up front instead of burying it in their T&C in lawerspeak like Apple, Microsoft and others.

          Sure I know I'm trading my precious, precious da

      • In other words, stop using the Internet.

  • Sure (Score:5, Funny)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Saturday November 04, 2017 @11:42AM (#55489315)

    For my secrets and crimes, I use encryption.

    • For my secrets and crimes, I use encryption.

      For everything else ...

    • Yeah, plus, if it was my data they wouldn't even let it onto their network!

      This is all google's data, that their users enter into their system. Of course I'm OK with them doing whatever they do with their data. The limits are whatever they told their users the limits would be! That is their responsibility.

      Who are these idiots who aren't OK with it? If I start a web service, you think I'm going to ask the internet how to handle that data, or am I going to make decisions myself depending on the needs of my bu

      • if it was my data they wouldn't even let it onto their network!

        You don't really understand how it works, do you?

        if you want it to be "your data" then you run it on your servers.

        That's naive, simplistic and, unfortunately, wrong. Running your own servers isn't enough - Google is collecting much more data than what users intentionally put into their systems, and therein lies the problem. Google is collecting data even if people have no direct interaction with Google or their properties. Are you checking Slashdot? Well, Slashdot reports you to Google, via calls to google-analytics and gstatic. Were you notified of this? Heck, n

        • by Altrag ( 195300 )

          You don't really understand how it works, do you?

          I believe parent knew exactly how it worked, and that was his point: Once you put it on their servers, its no longer "your" data in the sense that you don't have any control over it (hell, even if your theoretical legal control isn't explicitly removed by the EULA, good luck enforcing your rights against the likes of Google.)

          Google is collecting much more data than what users intentionally put into their systems

          While technically true, most people aren't really all that concerned with tracking cookies. What they're concerned with is who will see it when they save a picture of their junk to Go

          • Thank you for understanding my words. That's a little bit... unusual around here!

            Once you put it on their servers, its no longer "your" data in the sense that you don't have any control over it (hell, even if your theoretical legal control isn't explicitly removed by the EULA, good luck enforcing your rights against the likes of Google.)

            In the United States the data is owned by them for sure; you may own the copyright, but they own the copy that is stored physically on their system. You can't get it into their system without creating a copy inside their system; you have to copy it in! And they always own that copy. But you're right; even if it was only that they control their own servers it would already be as if they owned it. Of course, not all their data is

        • That's naive, simplistic and, unfortunately, wrong. Running your own servers isn't enough - Google is collecting much more data than what users intentionally put into their systems, and therein lies the problem. Google is collecting data even if people have no direct interaction with Google or their properties. Are you checking Slashdot? Well, Slashdot reports you to Google, via calls to google-analytics and gstatic. Were you notified of this? Heck, no. Can you opt out? Only by not using Slashdot, or thousands of other sites. Are you using some WIFI somewhere? Chances are they use Google DNS, and Google will record your queries and correlate your patterns of use until they know it's you.

          Hint to anybody who doesn't know (10% of Slashdot visitors I bet):You can simply block google-analytics and gstatic via plugins in your browser, or more elaborate, via hostfile editting and a number of other ways. I use Privacy Badger and NoScript. Most website (including slashdot) work perfectly well with google spyware disabled. But some websites do not.

  • No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Saturday November 04, 2017 @11:44AM (#55489327)
    That's why I don't use google (and other) cloud services.
    • Yes, I'm OK with Google reading my data... but only the data I *ALLOW* them to read by storing on their cloud service. For everything else, it's offline.
      • by Altrag ( 195300 )

        Pre-encrypt it. Then you get the benefits of cloud storage (much better persistence than your average hard drive, without having to invest in and maintain a full RAID yourself) without them being able to read it (assuming you encrypt it with a secure algorithm.)

        Of course there's the downside of having to manually download and decrypt it any time you want to use the data. Nothing's ever easy!

  • by 605dave ( 722736 ) on Saturday November 04, 2017 @11:45AM (#55489331) Homepage

    I have never been a fan of Google starting with gmail. Google's business from day one was to collect as much data on you as possible and either use that data themselves or sell it to others. It boggled my mind why anyone would use gmail because of the privacy issues, but then realized that email was so hard to set up at the time that it was the path of least resistance for the masses. And in the process they gave up more than they realized. All of this goes for Facebook as well.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      When google started offering that service over a decade ago, the concept of what big data could do with the data wasn't as well established. At the time, they didn't own doubleclick and they were just using it to serve ads to pay for the service. Which seemed reasonable to a lot of people at the time, they weren't supposed to be reading it with employees, it was supposed to be done with computers.

      But, since then, the amount of data that companies can get their hands on without having permission has skyrocke

    • It boggled my mind why anyone would use gmail because of the privacy issues

      Yeah, and we've gotten nothing in return. Certainly no improvements in spam filtration, language processing, translation, personal assistants, etc. ...

    • by mikael ( 484 )

      Back in the 1990's, the US government had a problem. They wanted to monitor the internet (email, IRC, Usenet, web servers, credit ratings, loan companies, mortgage companies, bank accounts) and build up databases, but that wouldn't be tolerated by the public to have the government have a database with so much information about them. So the solution was to have private companies do the work, and use data mining and advertising revenue as a source of income to help pay for these systems. The US government wo

      • by Altrag ( 195300 )

        That's quite a ways down the conspiracy hole given that Snowden's release pretty much detailed the extent of the government's electronic spying -- including its limitations (well as of a couple years ago at least.) In particular, rather than setting up these "private" companies to do their bidding, they were having trouble convincing the companies to play ball, to the extent that they were essentially trying to do things like wiretap Google and suck up the data on its way to/from their servers.

        At least tha

  • by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Saturday November 04, 2017 @11:46AM (#55489345)

    If I use Google, I expect that I should be able to get my data back at some point. Perhaps when I log in to GMail, and maybe at other times. Providing that service without a few calls to read() seems infeasible.

    Oh, did you mean something else by the headline?

  • Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) on Saturday November 04, 2017 @11:47AM (#55489355) Homepage Journal

    When I put unencrypted data on a cloud drive, it doesn't matter what the legal agreement is. The underlying truth is that the data can be read. Act accordingly. Don't put unencrypted data on a cloud service drive that you don't want to be read by someone else, whether the service provider or some other entity (government, hacker, malcontent employee etc.).

    When you are running a business, this is a tradeoff. The costs of hosting it yourself and making sure it's backed up, available and secure are significant. Do you care more about Google reading your stock report than you care about putting in time and money to host it yourself. In many cases it's a slam dunk and the data gets hosted on Google for a reasonable fee. In some cases, the data goes in a secure place in a secure manner, but it's a small fraction of the data.

    • In other news, don't print secrets on T-shirts either.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      To be honest, that's not how most people think about their data. For the most part they think that some entities are acting within the law like Google, Apple etc. and the law will protect them. And then there's the entities that operate outside the law and they'll hack their way in whether it's local or in the cloud. Look at all the people who get viruses and malware, they don't feel particularly much safer just because it's physically on-premise. At least with the cloud they got backups so it's done half r

      • To be honest, that's not how most people think about their data. For the most part they think that some entities are acting within the law like Google, Apple etc. and the law will protect them. And then there's the entities that operate outside the law and they'll hack their way in whether it's local or in the cloud. Look at all the people who get viruses and malware, they don't feel particularly much safer just because it's physically on-premise. At least with the cloud they got backups so it's done half right, often they don't have anything.

        For a business, it's pretty much the same except how much do you really trust your employees to be better than the cloud providers? Maybe a few that focus very hard on IT security do, but for most businesses it's like my network, their network... it's not exactly risk free either way. If you got real secrets I'd keep them on an air-gapped computer.

        In my case, the business is a Yarn store and it's my wife's. That she's married to a cryptographic security expert means the yarn store in question is somewhat better provided for in terms of security than the average yarn store.

        I've developed air gapped systems for CAs before, but in the final analysis. they're less secure than a non air-gapped system because air-gapping means delegating various tasks to humans that are normally automated. So it's easy for the humans to conspire and undermine the security.

  • No I am not. I don't use Cloud Services I don't run. My Android Phone uses LineageOS with F-Droid and not GApps. I use eGroupware, I use OwnCloud.

    • I've tried OwnCloud and SeaFile but both of them seem to have trouble with directories with open files. Seafile was a bit better but ends up with conflicts it can't deal with even when I am the only user of the directory from one location at a time.
  • Have a company NOT scanning documents on their servers for malware and childporn and you're open for all kinf of lawsuits, both criminal and civil.

    I'm, not exactly happy with my documents being scanned, but if I was a lawyer in Google's compliance department, it would still be in place.

    At least that bug showed that it's only an automated scanner and not someone actually reading through them.

    Furthermore, did this actually happen in GSuite too or only the free version?

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      You could have it say, just scan if/when the user attempts to create a public share/link/whatever rather than immediately, and prevent the document from being shared if it doesn't pass muster rather than arbitrarily deleting it.

      Of course that's probably still risky in other ways.. a criminal could store private documents on your server rather than his own PC and as long as he doesn't store knowledge of his account anywhere, authorities would never be able to find it (and on the other side, if you store it o

      • I thought they were only flagged to become unaccessible. Deleting them may be destruction of evidence in case some gouvernment agency wants to screw with you ("you" as in the file hosting company who probably needs that army of lawyers for exactly such problems)

        Likewise, not scanning them regularly still might open your company to charges of "posession"

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is this any different from Microsoft 365? Is Google specifically being called out for a reason other than being the biggest player?

  • I strongly discouraged my coworkers to share documents using Google Docs. We used it now and then for writing some scientific papers, but our work is too valuable to have somebody snooping it. We then came back to offline strong encryption and email file exchange. This of course does not ease collaborative writing anymore, but we found that actually - at least in our work - our present approach is much better. Next step will be to have coworkers give up Word for Latex, but this is not easy...
    I, for myself,
  • ... someone outside your company could be reading the company's confidential data then maybe you shouldn't be putting it on someone else's computers. Just sayin'.

    • Especially when someone else's computers are in "the cloud". Clouds are made up of DHMO (dihydrogen monoxide), and we all know how dangerous that chemical can be.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They can go read the newspapers instead.

    That's why I disable Javascript in the browser, however the ubiquitous spawn of urchin.js is called these days.

    Here's a random quote of this very page's source, somewhat embellished for readability, for you to see what I mean:

    function() {
    var ga = document.createElement('script');
    ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
    ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ?
    'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
    [...]

    Of course, for searches, I go to DuckDuckGo, ixquick or similar.

    They still do get too many data from me, but the less, the merrier. Hell, no.

    • They can go read the newspapers instead.

      That's why I disable Javascript in the browser, however the ubiquitous spawn of urchin.js is called these days.

      Here's a random quote of this very page's source, somewhat embellished for readability, for you to see what I mean:

      function() {

      var ga = document.createElement('script');

      ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;

      ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ?

      'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';

      [...]

      Of course, for searches, I go to DuckDuckGo, ixquick or similar.

      They still do get too many data from me, but the less, the merrier. Hell, no.

      From my HOSTS file: 127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com and Google is my search engine of choice.

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      They can go read the newspapers instead.

      They do that too, and many newspapers have taken issue with the practice.

  • I don't need to read anything to understand once I upload a file from my computer I've relinquish any sole control over it.

  • I gave them my files with full permissions, why should I be shocked that they looked at them

    I mean

    DUH

  • Remember when Google randomly flagged files in Google Docs for violating its terms of service?

    Yes, since it happened again yesterday.

    But don't worry, you can now request a review of the blocked file, by opening the file that you cannot open and requesting a review from within it.

  • I've received legal documents, some clearly client confidential, on ongoing litigation in error. Beyond my not agreeing to any of the legal disclaimers on the email, if Google read it and retained a copy I wonder what the ramifications are for keeping it confidential.
    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Probably none. The sender's use of the service entails an acceptance of the EULA and therefore any email sent over their service either:
      a) grants Google the right to store, read and forward the email, or
      b) if its a document that would legally require both parties' waiver for Google to perform those tasks, then the liability is on the sender for not understanding how the hell email works, never mind what Google does with the email behind the scenes.

      In both cases, Google has no liability when it comes to con

  • A young blonde woman was so depressed that she decided to end her life by throwing herself from the Bourne Bridge. She was about to leap into the frigid water when a handsome young sailor saw her tottering on the edge of the bridge, crying. He took pity on her and said "Look, you have so much to live for. I'm off to Europe in the morning, and if you like, I can stow you away on my ship and you can start a new life in Europe ... I'll take good care of you and bring you food everyday"
    . "How can I repay you fo
  • "Are You OK With Google Reading Your Data?"

    Never was, never will be. Next stupid question, please.

  • Any documents you have stored in google cloud / docs / drive are already being scanned by their software - how else could those docs be displayed and indexed?

    Further scanning for malware or whatever isn't done by humans - it's fully automated, implemented by software that in the recent case happened to be buggy.

  • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
    No....
    What starts as an offer of AV?
    Then just for the worst files of interest to the police?
    Then SJW suggestions and language corrections?

    Stay away from the cloud and having your documents content examined by strangers.
  • Yes I'm okay with Google reading my data because their profit motive aligns with my desire for the data to not be shared to every idiot with a spare dollar. Google is in the business of providing access and providing services. To do this their secret sauce recipe is the data they collect from you. That makes them much more likely to keep your data private and properly anonymise it when external parties come and request services.

    Compare that to a company like Samsung who make money by selling physical things

    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      . Google is in the business of providing access and providing services.

      Google is an advertising company. It's most of their revenue. You are their product, not their customer. They're in the business of selling your data to their customers, albeit indirectly by knowing every detail about you to target ads. Google needs to know your race, age, sex, religion, address, shopping habits, sexual preference, where you work, how much you make, how many kids you have and where they go to school, and so on. And unless you've been very careful, they know all of these things exactly,

      • They're in the business of selling your data to their customers

        Please next time open with: "I'm a parrot who parrots the you're the product meme but I have no clue". It would have saved you some time. Google has never parted with your data. They don't sell your information any more than Coca Cola sells their recipe to McDonalds so they can make it themselves.

        Please, learn how Google services work, especially the adsense service.

        Google needs to know your race, age, sex, religion, address, shopping habits, sexual preference, where you work, how much you make, how many kids you have and where they go to school, and so on. And unless you've been very careful, they know all of these things exactly, because they read all your documents and track all your online activities.

        And then maybe don't post on Slashdot under the influence of drugs. Really if you want to write pointless prose then create a new thread becaus

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          Does it matter whether Google is selling your information to a third party? They're already the creepy guy you don't want having your info.

          And do you disagree they know everything about you? Or do you not see the problem with e.g. Google having a database of all Muslims in the US?

          • Does it matter whether Google is selling your information to a third party?

            Erm. Yes. When entrusting someone with something it is kind of one of the biggest fucking points.

            • by lgw ( 121541 )

              Not to me: I'm first concerned with the vendor not looking at my data! Of course, just encrypt everything and it doesn't matter, but that's impractical for email.

              • Not to me:

                Good then go find yourself another conversation about a topic that is relevant to you.

  • You can stop using GMail, but you'll probably still want to exchange emails with others who do use GMail, so Google still gets to read a significant percentage of your emails. You can't tell by the domain name either, since there are many domains that route their email through GMail.

    You can stop using Google Search, but you'll still end up on a site that hosts Google ads, and therefore sends Google your browsing info. You can turn off javascript, but it doesn't matter, Google ads don't need javascript to tr

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Working...