On one hand, I'm definitely concerned about my privacy and sharing my data.

OTOH, I like to think of Google using my data as a form of a vote. The more data they have on me and tailor experiences using my usage data, the more useful it is and it will be designed to reflect that. So while in elections you may only get one vote for your choice of candidate, Google building on my interactions with an app will mean my voice is taken into consideration.

This is one of the reasons why I tend to share my crash/usage data with developers be it Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc.

“We will work together. Unwillingly at first on your part, but that will pass. […] In time, you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love.”

— Colossus: The Forbin Project, 1970

I share a similar discomfort. However, between Gmail and Google search, they already have all of my data.

> However, between Gmail and Google search, they already have all of my data.

I think we need to change our attitude here, because I don't think this is right. I think it is a self fulfilling prophecy. There is a certainly middle ground, and we are giving it up if we assume that companies already have everything. It is a false dichotomy to believe we either give all our information up or we go live in a cabin in the woods somewhere. Data minimization with an eye for the actual trade-offs in each situation is key.

You raise a good point. I guess my frustration is that there basically is no good way to have truly private/encrypted email-Google aside. Ironically, having your own email server in your closet (a la HRC) might be the most private option.

You highlight that people devalue other peoples' privacy compared to their own. HRC lost an election for having a mail server of her own. (Sure, she was a government official at the time.)

I think people do generally take it as a 0 or 1. Either their personal data isn't so valuable that they discount its value to 0. Or, they recon that google is too large an entity to avoid, so they effectively discount their data down to 0, again. It may also be a time sensitive matter. You only have so much life to live - how much do you want to spend customizing what you share with google?

I definitely feel google tech, phones included, should be much cheaper for the data their users give them. Their flagship devices are generally price-parity with Apple's - and Apple's not mining your data the way google is (to my knowledge).

You could pay for Google apps for work and don't have your data indexed. So it's really more a question how much money / work to switch to another provider is your data worth to you?

What exactly is so scary about indexing and so comforting about the lack thereof that makes all the difference to you and everyone else? The index is derived from the data... if you have the data you're minutes away from the index. And an index isn't even necessary to search data. Why are people okay with giving away their data as long as it's not indexed?

Minutes away, if Google would illegally access your data in violation with their terms of service, which does not make sense.

Is violating a contract a crime?

And what's the privacy issue with indexing, and heck, still showing ads? As long as they're not sharing your data, where is your privacy being violated by indexing and being shown ads when they already have the same data? That makes no sense.

Violating a contract is a breach of the civil code in my country, exposing you to financial compensation. It is very similar in the rest of the EU. So while not a crime, thankfully some countries still take that seriously.

The issue is "fuck you, I am paying you to use your service without having you getting your greedy paws on my data." If they start indexing data from actual customers, then they're reading it. That's a breach of privacy and contract, plain and simple. And at that point, well, you might as well not pay for their service if it doesn't bring you anything more than a free tier plan.

If I'm paying you to keep my private journal safe yet accessible, you bet I'm going to be pissed if you start telling me at which page something is. Maybe you just remembered a content -> page mapping, but you still read my damn private journal.

I was bringing up the contract issue somewhat separately to point out that it's not a criminal issue like the parent claimed, as far as I know. I wasn't saying breaching your contract is OK, sorry if that was confusing.

My main beef is with what we do and don't call a privacy violation. If your issue was that use of your information or identity by someone else (especially to make money) entitled your to fair compensation (or otherwise it shouldn't be done simply because of unfairness), I would agree with you. If your claim was that a PERSON (or their machine) obtaining any new information about you is a privacy violation, I would get that too. But you're claiming a machine that can violate your privacy merely by indexing and displaying things back to YOURSELF that it already knew. That makes no sense to me. No one is gaining any extra information about you when a computer indexes information it already has, so while it might be unfair, it simply cannot be a privacy violation.

I've decided to trust Google with my personal email, and that may be what it is. But for those who don't, I suspect the difference between "having" and "indexing for ad purposes" (the data is certainly indexed for search) is pretty irrelevant.

Google shut down my apps for work because one of our devs had multiple sign-in enabled and he had a banned play account. Google uses its bots for the ban hammer so just be careful

Could you expand on this? Was the dev a Superadmin of the domain or otherwise an "owner"?

Just hard to imagine companies having their domains shutdown for the acts of an employee who happens to have multi-login enabled.

dev was added as an admin to our google apps for work and had multi-login enabled. He already had a banned play account from five years ago.

The ban didn't happen overnight after he enabled multi-login. Took a few months and then got an email from Google that all related accounts and any accounts belonging to me or to this dev will be banned without any notice.

This is the reponse to the admin appealing the ban (Note the words "associated Google Play developer account")

"Hello Mimi,

Thank you for reaching out to the Google Play Team.

After reviewing your appeal, we have confirmed our initial decision and will not be reinstating your developer account.

Your Google Play Developer account has been terminated due to multiple policy violations by associated Google Play developer account. You may also review the Content Policy and the Developer Distribution Agreement.

Note that Google Play Developer Console terminations are associated with developers, and may span multiple account registrations and related Google services. Do not attempt to register a new developer account. Any subsequent registrations will be closed and your developer registration fee will not be refunded.

We recommend that you utilize an alternative method for distributing your apps in the future. Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Regards, Arya The Google Play Team"

Wow, so now in addition to criminal background checks companies should do "banned dev accounts" background checks.

I whole heartedly recommend fastmail as apaid alternative

Or protonmail.ch, free and secure.

Google might not show you ads, but they still index your emails for recommendations in Music, YouTube, etc.

There might be exceptions for university students and the like.

What on earth makes you think they don't index your data if you pay?

> You could pay for Google apps for work and don't have your data indexed.

Google still virus scans and allows searching on Apps. It's plenty indexed, even if they're not showing you ads.

These TPUs are not made by Nvidia but Google themselves.

> I'm not comfortable with Google having and sharing my data.

Is this in the ToS?

Can't wait for the big switch from google ai v2 to v7 which will require purging all existing sentient bots. This upgrade is required.