>So I've rehashed this argument a lot recently: Google has to snoop on your emails. Every email provider does. Spam classification, automatic labelling/filtering, things like the "we think this is phishing" banners, etc. all require some form of analysis. You could (and seem to be) calling some of that "snooping", but some of it is acceptable. So the question is where is the line drawn?
Its not about a line. Advertising functionality is simply not a core function of an email service. It is something that is tolerated in exchange for a free service. That is not the same as ceding control and letting a vendor do anything they wish simply because a vendor claims its useful.
>It's used to alert you on upcoming packages you may receive or bills you need to pay (if you have an android phone/google assistant). I think that's useful.
Well, how does storing the item purchased and the dollar amount and other purchase details help with tracking anything? AFAIK Amazon for e.g. has stopped putting in tracking information in their emails. There could be a useful function as far as bills are concerned, but its weird to take an email about a bill and then generate another wasteful notification about the same bill. Or to take a package has shipped email and generate another notification. But that is a separate discussion.
Also, if Android and google assistant users have chosen to enable such features with informed consent, I don't see why every single gmail user has to have this this enabled. I mean that in a rhetorical way, I do see why an advertising company would do such a thing. Anyway, I'm simply registering a protest and I encourage other users to do the same. Several invasive Google policies were reversed due to privacy push-backs, and so all hope is not lost.
>The argument is that labels are useful to some people. Google could misuse the data derived from labels. Similarly, purchase history info is useful to some people. Purchase history data could be misused by Google. If you trust Google to not misused labels, then why don't you trust them to not misuse purchase history? If you do trust them in both cases, this doesn't matter, and if you don't trust them at all, why are you using an email client that you think is completely lying about how they're using your data?
That to me, is needlessly polarizing a nuanced issue. "Either you trust us completely or you don't" is not really an argument worth having is it?
Its not about a line. Advertising functionality is simply not a core function of an email service. It is something that is tolerated in exchange for a free service. That is not the same as ceding control and letting a vendor do anything they wish simply because a vendor claims its useful.
>It's used to alert you on upcoming packages you may receive or bills you need to pay (if you have an android phone/google assistant). I think that's useful.
Well, how does storing the item purchased and the dollar amount and other purchase details help with tracking anything? AFAIK Amazon for e.g. has stopped putting in tracking information in their emails. There could be a useful function as far as bills are concerned, but its weird to take an email about a bill and then generate another wasteful notification about the same bill. Or to take a package has shipped email and generate another notification. But that is a separate discussion.
Also, if Android and google assistant users have chosen to enable such features with informed consent, I don't see why every single gmail user has to have this this enabled. I mean that in a rhetorical way, I do see why an advertising company would do such a thing. Anyway, I'm simply registering a protest and I encourage other users to do the same. Several invasive Google policies were reversed due to privacy push-backs, and so all hope is not lost.
>The argument is that labels are useful to some people. Google could misuse the data derived from labels. Similarly, purchase history info is useful to some people. Purchase history data could be misused by Google. If you trust Google to not misused labels, then why don't you trust them to not misuse purchase history? If you do trust them in both cases, this doesn't matter, and if you don't trust them at all, why are you using an email client that you think is completely lying about how they're using your data?
That to me, is needlessly polarizing a nuanced issue. "Either you trust us completely or you don't" is not really an argument worth having is it?