Google defends Gmail data sharing, gives few details on violations | Hacker News Reader

Google defends Gmail data sharing, gives few details on violations

reuters.com

61 pointsnopacience7 comments

I’m definitely no defender of Google’s most of the time, but this seems cut and dry. The user explicitly gave an extension the capability of reading their email. The alternative is for Google not to allow this and the extension having to have an unencrypted copy of your username and password to read email.

But taking your logic for whether or not that's ok, then the whole Cambridge Analytica scandal with Facebook should also be considered "cut-and-dry," since the terms and conditions users were accepting meant that the user gives explicit permission to read metadata (read: demographic data) of the user.

TBH I'm not sure I agree with you either way, but if that's what you're arguing, then let's give equal treatment where it's due.

There is a difference in intent.

If I give a third party explicit permission to access my email, I am doing it to benefit me. It’s not behind some blob of text in a Eula. Google says specifically, you are giving this app the right to read your email.

If Google didn’t have that functionality and the same user gave the third party access by giving them thier username and password. The third party extension still has access to your email and now they have an unencrypted password that the user is probably using in other places.

I’m assuming that there is also some type of method to ensure the token is only being used by a certain extension so that if the token is leaked it can’t be used by another app.

"Breaking: Google, the king of "you are the product", makes customers the product." FTFY Don't like this any more than anyone else, but who honestly expected better from Google?

I don’t get your point. These are third party extensions that you opt into. The alternative is giving a third party your password and letting them use IMAP. This seems like a better compromise that Google can actually log.

He most likely didn't read the article.

Possibly, but the article also gives incoherent information with respect to time. For example, earlier it writes:

"Google said in a letter to U.S. senators made public on Thursday that it relies on automated scans and reports from security researchers to monitor add-ons after launch, but did not respond to lawmakers’ request to say how many have been caught violating the company’s policies. "

And then: "Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

Which is OK, then at the end:

"House lawmakers asked Google in a separate letter in July whether smartphones with its voice assistant tool can or do collect so-called “non-triggered” audio in order to recognize phrases like “Okay Google” that activate voice controls. The lawmakers cited media reports and said there had been suggestions that third-party applications have access to and use this non-triggered data without disclosure to users."

So what was the response from Google about this issue which they were asked two months earlier, although the article cites it at the very end? Does the "did not immediately respond to a request for comment" also apply to that one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com