View Single Post
Old 08-17-2013, 11:31 AM   #55
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,896
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
To get an idea about the complaint against Google:
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Quote:
INTRODUCTION
Separate from the normal web-mail processing for SPAM, viruses, spellchecking, routing and delivery, storage, and/or the placement of an email message in a user’s inbox, Google actually diverts email messages to separate devices to extract the meaning from the message. These separate devices do not deliver the message, nor do they simply spell-check, index, or highlight words. Google designed these devices to capture the authors’ actual thoughts (“thought data”) for Google’s secret use. Any other definition of “automated processing” or “automated scanning” used in the context of this Motion is irrelevant and ignores the Complaint’s recitation of the actual practices at issue.

Google creates and uses this “thought data” and attaches it to the messages so Google can better exploit the communication’s “meaning” for commercial gain. Google collects and stores the “thought data” separately from the email message and uses the “thought data” to: (1) spy on its users (and others); and, (2) amass vast amounts of “thought data” on millions of people (secret user profiles). Google’s attempt to describe its “thought data” mining generically as “automated processing” or “automated scanning” improperly rewrites Plaintiffs’ allegations.

Google does not disclose its “thought data” mining to anyone. Google’s undisclosed processes run contrary to its expressed agreements. Google even intercepts and appropriates the content of minors’ emails despite the minors’ legal incapacity to consent to such interception and use. Thus, these undisclosed practices are not within the ordinary course of business and cannot form the basis of informed consent. Despite Google’s proclamation, Google cannot do “as it wishe[s]” with the private communications of millions of unsuspecting users and third parties in violation of the privacy protections afforded by the statutes at issue here. Accordingly, Google’s motion should be denied.
Sil_liS is offline   Reply With Quote