Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] speaking of privacy...

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Evan Zimmerman <evan.zimmerman AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] speaking of privacy...
  • Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:46:24 -0400

Sorry 'bout that blank one there...

It does exactly what you mentioned -- if you send me a message that
mentions your new camera little ads will appear about cameras. This
last message had no ads associated with it at all though, which is
common if there aren't any words that can be keyed on.
As an example my domain is currently not resolving due to less than
stellar hosting -- someone sent a nice note letting me know, and the
ads in that note were 1. for a hosting directory and 2. for alaska
university, presumably because of ibiblio in the thread.

I really haven't noticed the subject of the ads though except when
first using gmail. There far less noticeable than you might imagine.

That said, I had a lot of concerns about it myself initially... until
I realized what I mentioned -- archives are everywhere, and most of us
have email stored on remote servers with our hosts or webmails or
Universities anyway. Just depends on where you draw the line I
suppose. I got over it easily :-)

Evan


On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:02:27 -0400 (EDT), Alan MacHett
<machett AT ibiblio.org> wrote:
> In reference to Evan Zimmerman's message:
> > I'm sure INW was already archived somewhere by google, yes? Would
> > passing through gmail be different in some way?
> >
>
> No, other than they seem to be storing/compiling everything for reasons
> other than public interest.
>
> I was just poking fun at the automated email reading of gmail. I
> personally don't like Google, but more to the point, I'm not sure how the
> "read your gmail to target advertising" works. I was discussing this with
> a friend the other day; she uses gmail.
>
> If they scan my message to her to target ads to her, well, I could be
> talking about the rising cost of ox dung fertilizer for rice paddies in
> China, which she could care less about, so any ads directed her way would
> be pointless. On the other hand, if they're scanning her email to me,
> well, /I/ can't get their ads, so big whoop; or if they're scanning her
> mail to target back at her, well, it would be after the fact; she's
> already sent the mail.
>
> I'm sure I'm missing something. I just don't get it. And I just don't
> like Google. I will give them this; they get the Boolean NOT operator
> correct. Tried a search recently and Google was the only engine that
> actually excluded the NOT term. (It was a search for Lennon, the recent
> singer, not John or Julian or Sean.)
>
> ....but I blather on. ;)
>
> -Alan
>
>
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
>


--

Evan

_________________________
evan.zimmerman AT gmail.com
http://evanz.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page