Google keeps a log of all digital receipts emailed to your GMail account.

On 5/19/2019 2:16 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
Do others get completely different results when using these methods?
1. WEB BASED SEARCH QUERY label:^smartlabel_receipt
2. https://myaccount.google.com/purchases

#1 shows nothing but tells me that there are results in spam/deleted --
these are all UPS shipping/delivery notifications

#2 shows nothing

On 19/05/2019 20.16, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
I'm allergic to bull**** from people who say they knew about this all along
o And yet, they almost certainly did not (yet they bull**** us anyway)

You can believe what you wish and insult me at large if that makes you
happier. I knew that google was collecting receipts since about two
year. And that they scan and read my email since ever. I did read the
term and conditions in full with my first google account - and at that
time, it was an experiment, you got one by invitation. You may google me
and find how I warned people against gmail "because they read your
emails" more than a decade ago.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 19/05/2019 20.42, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| Isn't that the worst of both worlds? You're taking
| the word of a sleazy, known liar and getting no benefit.
|
| I don't think gmail has lied to me so far.
|

Good luck with that.
The whole presentation is a lie, inasmuch as there's
no real agreement or awareness about the extent of
spying. Google, of course, would claim it's in their terms,
but that's nonsense.

Well, it was in their terms. Maybe not in clear words for everybody to
understand, but it was there. So no, they did not lie. You can like it,
or not use it, your choice. Why do you think I do not use gmail for
business mail such as receipts?

And no TOS can rightly claim the
right to rifle through your personal effects, much less
analyze the data and sell it on.

Just this week there was news that Google
knows shopping history due to purchase receipts being
sent to gmail.

A storm in a tea pot.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| The whole presentation is a lie, inasmuch as there's
| no real agreement or awareness about the extent of
| spying. Google, of course, would claim it's in their terms,
| but that's nonsense.
|
| Well, it was in their terms. Maybe not in clear words for everybody to
| understand, but it was there. So no, they did not lie.

They've effectively lied in that they know virtually
everyone won't understand or be aware of how they
operate. Much of the Internet works that way. It depends
on the spying being invisible.
Another great example of outright lying is the pretense
that you can delete your email when you actually can't.

http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+J...3-6050295.html

(Link now goes to a junk page for me because I don't
enable script. It might work with script or it might
be removed.)

| You can like it,
| or not use it, your choice. Why do you think I do not use gmail for
| business mail such as receipts?
|
? You may have misunderstood. The point was
that a lot of people use their gmail address to have
sales receipts sent to but didn't realize Google is storing
and mining that data to track their purchases.

| Just this week there was news that Google
| knows shopping history due to purchase receipts being
| sent to gmail.
|
| A storm in a tea pot.
|

Yes. That's generally what gmail users say.
But then you defend them and try to find a
way to not see them as sleazy liars.

On 5/19/19 PDT 12:35 PM, John McGaw wrote:
On 5/19/2019 2:16 PM, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
Do others get completely different results when using these methods?
1. WEB BASED SEARCH QUERYÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* label:^smartlabel_receipt
2. https://myaccount.google.com/purchases

#1 shows nothing but tells me that there are results in spam/deleted --
these are all UPS shipping/delivery notifications

#2 shows nothing

It shows a lot of x posting.

There is a recent add-on called Stylus for Firefox. Looks like it will
do for replacing Stylebot for Chrome. Being able to change webpage CSS
is just necessary! It might not be as automated (yet), but at least it
is under development. I will probably find an alternative to my Gmail
email account as well, at least for anything potentially important like
window shopping. Maybe Fastmail.

I might do an installation of Windows without any trace of Chrome.

The fact Google does not allow turning off the intrusion or reasonably
removing the entries is outrageous. And they say all they are doing is
providing a service. Yeah, right. I could remove the entries via
scripting, but what a hassle.

When YouTube/Google deletes someone's YouTube account, the user has no
way of retrieving their videos and stuff. But I bet the creeps keep an
archive of it.

On 20/05/2019 04.34, Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| The whole presentation is a lie, inasmuch as there's
| no real agreement or awareness about the extent of
| spying. Google, of course, would claim it's in their terms,
| but that's nonsense.
|
| Well, it was in their terms. Maybe not in clear words for everybody to
| understand, but it was there. So no, they did not lie.

They've effectively lied in that they know virtually
everyone won't understand or be aware of how they
operate. Much of the Internet works that way. It depends
on the spying being invisible.

But it is not invisible, and no, they did not lie.

Another great example of outright lying is the pretense
that you can delete your email when you actually can't.

Oh, but they said they are working on making that easier.


http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+J...3-6050295.html

(Link now goes to a junk page for me because I don't
enable script. It might work with script or it might
be removed.)

| You can like it,
| or not use it, your choice. Why do you think I do not use gmail for
| business mail such as receipts?
|
? You may have misunderstood. The point was
that a lot of people use their gmail address to have
sales receipts sent to but didn't realize Google is storing
and mining that data to track their purchases.

Their fault entirely.


| Just this week there was news that Google
| knows shopping history due to purchase receipts being
| sent to gmail.
|
| A storm in a tea pot.
|

Yes. That's generally what gmail users say.
But then you defend them and try to find a
way to not see them as sleazy liars.

Because they did not lie...

They are other things, but not liars. It was very clear that they
scanned and spied us. They told us. It is their business model. You
still use them? Your fault.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 19/05/2019 20.16, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
I'm allergic to bull**** from people who say they knew about this all along
o And yet, they almost certainly did not (yet they bull**** us anyway)

You can believe what you wish and insult me at large if that makes you
happier. I knew that google was collecting receipts since about two
year. And that they scan and read my email since ever. I did read the
term and conditions in full with my first google account - and at that
time, it was an experiment, you got one by invitation. You may google me
and find how I warned people against gmail "because they read your
emails" more than a decade ago.

I've worked in "email admin" before (well, more being the gofer for the
admin when he was busy doing whatever massaging of Exchange was
necessary).

It's surprising how many people in a corporate environment think that
their (corporate) emails are private, and get all bent out of shape when
they find out that is false.

"It's right there in the employee handbook that you didn't read..."


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlzijV 8ACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooG2rwgAhSTgaA3XrAMFzDnydIOYovWiV6Z9Xfb8joW/rWRCC3vGBIVmpJu4tMZG
qTSGJHYWT2SC8UBGumKe/2OXgyWZLGcnnOhhCE5umZOS613DvUFyAzcr7UjHnQKR
mr9vJ1+k0v3h6xPMq3RPEz15NxGPCTSFrWGsSuizz9/eATsI9THNCn/DoF2kD8cn
vycVMLoMkMnKal5eXGq5fk+KeWDkHI68QRQRs7pddjqU2vwz7t uTXKf+zQTtU7dc
AfO01m0SRtAe2+OTyRSE0iZ4MeJLy+sGQrkRNAsUmyfc2J1nmD JAU+EqkWTLTB0C
paOIUfMauQJJx1KpMhrHtLwZZFQLJw==
=mKEi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Carlos E.R. wrote:
[...]
But you can hire gmail to handle your own domain email, I believe. Those
gmail say they don't inspect, they have different conditions.

You can. I know of several small businesses (i.e. 1 man shops) that do
this.

It's been a while, but the actual terms are more along the lines of
"lesser" scanning (i.e. they don't try targeting ads to you based on the
communications, some other things).

The only way to get it "uninspected(tm)" (spam filtering and basic email
sanity still happens) is to tell them you're handling PII (i.e. subject
to HIPAA / other privacy laws). Bear in mind though:

(A) I'm in the states. Your locality may require differnt things.
(B) This was years before GDPR. Things may have changed due to that.
(C) I'm hardly an expert in the matter. Was helping a friend get the
technical aspects down, before making a decision to move.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlzikG EACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFjTwf/b98qx1g6w1HoejRTBhnBRWIvVE/3j0rND3aqUU2mtCFtfpeIqHkUkLT5
jy+yxyZCzRi34WLWkWAuPUtZgMuMpaWuF0Xwo302KfEn3AwoVP uKEYHoKjfUyooA
cz4E2us3ltO4cRjQb1oZn2IK6J4P4FJ6kQsQHDdOhc8tg08FZ9 33gt4wKAhSq80X
dsY2I1V/pfioSthnXmsD9v4Upwt2WHSBh7LMguvBLT/dMqaw0ZSVePkXiPhDULuN
+lYmb6TVjbjI6dTjKB4FyCH7Gnh0qtJa8fshhxCzD4BamSyMRs deYXnJNYyyf0/6
IL3il7e53IynNkT7QZdCQV/xnMciGg==
=VQYd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mayayana wrote:
"Carlos E.R." wrote

| But you can hire gmail to handle your own domain email, I believe. Those
| gmail say they don't inspect, they have different conditions.
|

Isn't that the worst of both worlds? You're taking
the word of a sleazy, known liar and getting no benefit.
If your email is coming from there's still
the risk of getting blocked. It doesn't matter who the
smtp server is. In other words, the point of using gmail
is specifically that email from gmail.com tends to be
trusted.

In those instances, it's still coming from " -- it's just
being sent by google's mailservers rather than a box sitting in the
"acme.com" offices.

Same as when companies use outlook.com / o365 mail, or probably any
other "cloud(tm)" mail provider.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlzikQ gACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooGXcQf+PyM8i09JiFcAdSJtHHlpVWTGJ7yFjTKfSnnxjUh506/3NoJ77p0NGBCn
WeEc9Wxece+brYZov+bPw0KruGrcglnk4EZskWUw6o+R1OMJO5 o254fcP4fxGNM2
WzDKBhCMzUq2+l2tz4qNdrnR97Og4YGBnEAUPQtg0v6Ot9ZFDB V5Th+25lN6AmhA
FXycDvAYxqVK4kzhCisTf+1Z6YjbynAKc18xJ/frGdsF6vSr3s1eJL7ZQO+Hi6DC
GVkmt570UyhksyUEQrQP1SsSa0ybVX3Ci4kQgew7DcHaZdJC6s 9/k8mKGbsFmgpe
/E8PgHdiaImrhTy7EXeZ7Ll8YpQeBA==
=7O2x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

Why are we still feeding Mr. Holden?

On 20/05/2019 13.20, Dan Purgert wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 19/05/2019 20.16, Arlen G. Holder wrote:
I'm allergic to bull**** from people who say they knew about this all along
o And yet, they almost certainly did not (yet they bull**** us anyway)

You can believe what you wish and insult me at large if that makes you
happier. I knew that google was collecting receipts since about two
year. And that they scan and read my email since ever. I did read the
term and conditions in full with my first google account - and at that
time, it was an experiment, you got one by invitation. You may google me
and find how I warned people against gmail "because they read your
emails" more than a decade ago.

I've worked in "email admin" before (well, more being the gofer for the
admin when he was busy doing whatever massaging of Exchange was
necessary).

It's surprising how many people in a corporate environment think that
their (corporate) emails are private, and get all bent out of shape when
they find out that is false.

"It's right there in the employee handbook that you didn't read..."


In some countries, it is illegal. Which is a funny situation, as nothing
impedes the admin from seeing email "by accident". Admins and
supervisors have found themselves in court because of that.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"Carlos E.R." wrote

| Because they did not lie...

It's worse than I thought. Classic abusee behavior,
defending the abuser.

| It was very clear that they
| scanned and spied us. They told us.

Ask the average person. Do they actually realize what's
happening? No. If you push it they'll say something like,
"Ah, they got you coming and going. There's nothing you
can do. No sense worrying." They're certainly not going
to pore over pages of misleading legalese. And Google
know that. (There used to be articles in PC magazines
in the 90s, meant to be humorous, about all the claims
made in software click-through licenses. They were
ridiculous. Unfortunately, they're also legally binding.)

It was very clear the tobacco
companies were honest about cancer risks. It was very
clear that Monsanto warned about glyphosate.... Woops.
Come to think of it, they're still denying it. Ask the average
gardener about RoundUp risks. They'll pooh-pooh it. In
the face of conflicting or hidden information people take
the easiest option. Most people will snicker or say something
about tinfoil hat liberals. They only care about removing
the grass from the cracks in their driveway without having
to bend over.

Today, despite numerous warnings about cigarettes,
I've have never seen a discussion of the problem of
toxic additives and herbicides used on tobacco, which
is unregulated because tobacco is classed a non-food
plant. Do we even know whether tobacco alone is a
health risk? No.
Do people realize the bread they eat
is made with flour from wheat sprayed with glyphosate
at harvest, simply because it helps to dry to wheat faster?
It's being used to shrivel the wheat plant for easier
harvesting!

Those are just a sampling of the thousands of issues
that people could* be aware of but are not.

Information like that is out there. Knowing the data
and the implications is another matter. It generally takes
years or even decades for the general public to catch up.
Research showed hydrogenated fats were bad in the 70s.
Only in recent years have "experts" caught up. Why? It
would have just been too disruptive to ban them. Corporations
don't spend billions on lobbying and marketing just for fun.

(Though Europe is more civilized and humane than the US.
You at least have better regulations. Most of the push
toward privacy now is not coming from grassroots but
rather from US media running stories about EU fines and
regulation. Without the EU we in the US would have no
hope of action.)

| It is their business model. You
| still use them? Your fault.
|

Unfortunately it's not that simple. I've never
used gmail and block all Google/Doublclick domains
online except google.com itself, which I rarely use.
But I can't run my business or email friends without
accepting gmail. Too many use it. There was a class
action case against Google for spying on people
who haven't agreed to the terms (like me), but if I
remember correctly it failed.

I block webmail at my website. I figure anyone writing
me there wants help so they can at least use a
real, non-sleazy email account if they want to reach me.
But in general I can't afford to do that.

There's really
no option but to keep reminding the public that not
only are companies like Google establishing an immoral
corporate precedent but that we also risk losing basic
freedoms to their monopoly. Most in the younger
generation already can't grasp that concept. They've
grown up with the likes of Google, Apple and Facebook
owning their social life and communication, selling it
back to them with spyware and ads. This past weekend I
got a second invite to my neighbors' baby's birthday party.
The invite is from evite.com. I just delete such things.
I don't accept social invitations from "social sites".
But my neighbors don't have any idea how antisocial
it is to have a for-profit corporation handle their social
interactions.

To put it another
way, they young have grown up ina privately owned
shopping mall and can't grasp the idea that a generation
ago people were citizens who could meet on the town
common, while now they're consumers who have to buy
stuff to take part in public life.

On the bright side, it's actually become trendy for
journalists to acknowledge privacy issues -- an indication
that it's becoming a mainstream, non-controversial
position. Last week in the NYT (that beacon of
mainstream, consensus reality) I saw an article about
music options. Since I don't listen to music I didn't
pay much attention, but the headline caught my eye:
The reviewer was saying that despite using numerous
streaming services his preference is CDs, because
there's no sleazy spyware involved. Not long ago that
article would have been impossible. His view would have
been too fringey for the mainstream media to even
acknowledge. Even now, the use of CDs is couched inside
an article that name-drops nearly every streaming service
and supports using those services.

"Dan Purgert" wrote

| Isn't that the worst of both worlds? You're taking
| the word of a sleazy, known liar and getting no benefit.
| If your email is coming from there's still
| the risk of getting blocked. It doesn't matter who the
| smtp server is. In other words, the point of using gmail
| is specifically that email from gmail.com tends to be
| trusted.
|
| In those instances, it's still coming from " -- it's just
| being sent by google's mailservers rather than a box sitting in the
| "acme.com" offices.

Yes, that was my point. The spam filter is
seeing the "From". It's not going to judge the
email trustworthy just because Google is one
of the servers mentioned in the header.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 20/05/2019 13.20, Dan Purgert wrote:
[...]
"It's right there in the employee handbook that you didn't read..."


In some countries, it is illegal. Which is a funny situation, as nothing
impedes the admin from seeing email "by accident". Admins and
supervisors have found themselves in court because of that.

Not here (US) -- the accounts are "company property(tm)". But then
again, I haven't email admin'd in quite a long time.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlzirK AACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooGjpQgArSG4LiRDK+2H9acPAAu0j/XzYHZHYVu6SEcGzcrAQeZODhIB32vZVo17
qGK/BBeQGRVXY9MKiRQ9RBStbmLfBt+ik35XM+MJ/WKlh52121qdU8nDvGHqv2yb
b7Jeo5T+uA7LMRiNg/d29uMUVZSLDW22BeoTQt8Peaq6RBNZix8YBwJk/DKLx/+2
Xul35qKgjWjbTpBH7AXDgaCSKmLPpBluB0cmQ52BvD4msJbrND 6IZC5FXMSe56Ua
hMyzdr1TEBdkK1GKbNOf3A6kck8c05a1WL7MzUAIll02wn4fRM 0D8/PAfr/DfY8Y
14As2U70qkz8wm8InMg3JD+Aj/sTug==
=X/w7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281