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

On 19/05/2019 02.42, John Doe wrote:
If there were nothing unusual about the practice of reading
customers' emails, other email providers would do it. But they
don't. Microsoft doesn't. There are some ads in Hotmail, or you can
pay for the service.

It's a SHOCKING practice. Government is not even allowed to read our
emails, without a court order. At least here in the United States,
no one is allowed to monitor customer communications without a court
order. Not the mail service and not the telephone service. It should
be no different for email. Sooner or later Google will get in
trouble for abusing it.

A Google fanboy from Spain...


LOL

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 19/05/2019 04.43, nospam wrote:
In article , John Doe
wrote:


It's a SHOCKING practice. Government is not even allowed to read our
emails, without a court order. At least here in the United States,
no one is allowed to monitor customer communications without a court
order. Not the mail service and not the telephone service. It should
be no different for email. Sooner or later Google will get in
trouble for abusing it.

false. law enforcement generally can't without a warrant, but others
can, which is partly how spam filtering works.


The difference is that it is machines who read the mails, not persons,
thus it is legal. Machines do not need a court order, even less when the
user signed an agreement that clearly said the mail would be scanned.

You are right, any antispam system reads the email.

Now, when some google developers read email (possibly to develop the
programming that will do the "reading"), that's suspicious.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 19/05/2019 02.44, John Doe wrote:
No, Google did not "tell it from day one". In fact, they had to add
language in 2014 to avoid lawsuits.

Microsoft does not read their customers emails. Problem is, this
poster comes from a country that isn't used to freedom we have here
in the United States...

LOL

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 19/05/2019 02.56, John Doe wrote:
That the poster can find citations about the unethical practice is
not surprising. My question was about the user agreement. Whether
the poster knew about the unethical practice, only the Shadow knows.
And it still did not provide a Google "announcement" of the
practice.

The fact Google had to add language to its user agreement in 2014 is
telling. It was under pressure from lawsuits against the unethical
practice of reading its customers' emails.

This post is from a Spanish Google fanboy (perhaps an employee of
Google)...

LOL.




--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sun, 19 May 2019 00:56:36 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
wrote:

That the poster can find citations about the unethical practice is
not surprising. My question was about the user agreement. Whether
the poster knew about the unethical practice, only the Shadow knows.
And it still did not provide a Google "announcement" of the
practice.

"It" did. See my sig.

//11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold
in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the
Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give
Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and
non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate,
publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any
Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the
Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google
...... //

.... to sell your data to any interested parties (including
oppressive governments) at the highest bidder.
At least they're honest about it.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

"mechanic" wrote

| I blame Ray Tomlinson who invented email back in the '70s; in those
| days there was this quaint notion that users were generally honest
| citizens. This the email protocols were light on security and
| privacy. The general idea that early developers were collegiate in
| their approach and this lead to clever efficient solutions to
| problems overlooks issues that no-one thought important in those
| days. Thus in the 21st C. we find it difficult to row back on early
| design mistakes, and blame the likes of Zuckerberg for the failings
| of earlier designers.
|

I'm not so sure people were thinking much of anything.
Scientists had managed to communicate globally, among
themselves, for free. It was a breakthrough. No one had
got to the point of preparing for security issues or
corporate hijacking of the Internet. Just as the Wright
brothers weren't thinking about whether airlines should
charge for peanuts.

I blame all the lazy people who use corporate webmail.
Especially gmail. Google is gradually becoming synonymous
with email. Someone with a business was just telling me
yesterday that she uses gmail for her business. Instead
of it's . I asked why,
noting that a gmail account for business looks tacky and
ignorant. She said it's because acme.com will get blocked
by spam filters but gmail won't! So when you see
on the side of a van, the plumber is
probably a tech hayseed who doesn't realize he could get
his own domain.... But he might be a tech sophisticate on
the cutting edge, entirely accepting of the idea that Google
owns his communication, and happy to pay fees or watch
ads in exchange for using the Internet service he's already
paid for!

On 19/05/2019 15.58, Mayayana wrote:
"mechanic" wrote

| I blame Ray Tomlinson who invented email back in the '70s; in those
| days there was this quaint notion that users were generally honest
| citizens. This the email protocols were light on security and
| privacy. The general idea that early developers were collegiate in
| their approach and this lead to clever efficient solutions to
| problems overlooks issues that no-one thought important in those
| days. Thus in the 21st C. we find it difficult to row back on early
| design mistakes, and blame the likes of Zuckerberg for the failings
| of earlier designers.
|

I'm not so sure people were thinking much of anything.
Scientists had managed to communicate globally, among
themselves, for free. It was a breakthrough. No one had
got to the point of preparing for security issues or
corporate hijacking of the Internet. Just as the Wright
brothers weren't thinking about whether airlines should
charge for peanuts.

Yep.


I blame all the lazy people who use corporate webmail.
Especially gmail. Google is gradually becoming synonymous
with email. Someone with a business was just telling me
yesterday that she uses gmail for her business. Instead
of it's .

I see those, yes.

I asked why,
noting that a gmail account for business looks tacky and
ignorant. She said it's because acme.com will get blocked
by spam filters but gmail won't!

Ah!

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

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"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.

I actually ran into something like this several years ago.
My ladyfriend was volunteering with Harvard University and her
email from both our IP and from my own domain, into
Harvard, were being blocked. It took awhile to figure it out.
Turned out the the man in charge of the system didn't
understand it. They had subbed it out to another company,
which was blocking all non-whitelisted domains. This was
Harvard and the IT people didn't even know how to manage
their email! Nor did the man in charge know how to change
the settings. Nor did they really care. And as long as the
subcontractor didn't hear the complaints, it was easiest for
them to just block unfamiliar domains.

It's very ironic that crap like gmail or hotmail or yahoo
would be trusted, yet ISP email is not. But maybe that makes
some sense. Google probably pays more attention now to
gmail security than ISPs do. My own mail server sometimes
blocks Comcast, simply because Comcast has a lot of
customers with computers or email accounts taken over by
bots, and Comcast can't be bothered to deal with the problem
because it's not their primary business.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

I blame all the lazy people who use corporate webmail.
Especially gmail. Google is gradually becoming synonymous
with email. Someone with a business was just telling me
yesterday that she uses gmail for her business. Instead
of it's . I asked why,
noting that a gmail account for business looks tacky and
ignorant. She said it's because acme.com will get blocked
by spam filters but gmail won't! So when you see
on the side of a van, the plumber is
probably a tech hayseed who doesn't realize he could get
his own domain.... But he might be a tech sophisticate on
the cutting edge, entirely accepting of the idea that Google
owns his communication, and happy to pay fees or watch
ads in exchange for using the Internet service he's already
paid for!

*much* better to hire a plumber who knows how to fix plumbing issues
than a plumber who is tech savvy and knows how to set up an email
server but not so good at plumbing.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

It's a SHOCKING practice. Government is not even allowed to read our
emails, without a court order. At least here in the United States,
no one is allowed to monitor customer communications without a court
order. Not the mail service and not the telephone service. It should
be no different for email. Sooner or later Google will get in
trouble for abusing it.

false. law enforcement generally can't without a warrant, but others
can, which is partly how spam filtering works.


The difference is that it is machines who read the mails, not persons,
thus it is legal. Machines do not need a court order, even less when the
user signed an agreement that clearly said the mail would be scanned.

correct.

You are right, any antispam system reads the email.

Now, when some google developers read email (possibly to develop the
programming that will do the "reading"), that's suspicious.

they do not need access to user content to develop machine learning
algorithms.

On 19/05/2019 17.18, 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.

I don't think gmail has lied to me so far.

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.

Yes, there is that.

but it can also come from , and if you pay google to
handle it, then it will also work.

Hint: do a "host" search on ieee.org.


I actually ran into something like this several years ago.
My ladyfriend was volunteering with Harvard University and her
email from both our IP and from my own domain, into
Harvard, were being blocked. It took awhile to figure it out.
Turned out the the man in charge of the system didn't
understand it. They had subbed it out to another company,
which was blocking all non-whitelisted domains. This was
Harvard and the IT people didn't even know how to manage
their email! Nor did the man in charge know how to change
the settings. Nor did they really care. And as long as the
subcontractor didn't hear the complaints, it was easiest for
them to just block unfamiliar domains.

It's very ironic that crap like gmail or hotmail or yahoo
would be trusted, yet ISP email is not. But maybe that makes
some sense. Google probably pays more attention now to
gmail security than ISPs do. My own mail server sometimes
blocks Comcast, simply because Comcast has a lot of
customers with computers or email accounts taken over by
bots, and Comcast can't be bothered to deal with the problem
because it's not their primary business.

My ISP has stopped giving email addresses. They tell people to use gmail
instead.
--
Cheers, Carlos.

Do others get completely different results when using these methods?
1. WEB BASED SEARCH QUERY label:^smartlabel_receipt
2. https://myaccount.google.com/purchases

On Sun, 19 May 2019 02:40:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

Just modified. It was there since ever.

On Sat, 18 May 2019 22:31:16 -0400, Clare Snyder wrote:

OK - I did NOT know about this SPECIFIC cache -

Hi Clare,
THANK YOU for being honest.
o To your credit, you can see both sides of the coin.

Very few people on Usenet would admit what you did
o Nor would they _dig deeper_ for facts - as you did.

That you did both those things, is a testament to two things
o Your inteligence
o Your credibility

You are like me - where you _care_ about your credibility.

I simply _knew_ you didn't know about this specific cache.
o Only because _nobody_ knew about this specific cache.

That's why it's making the news.

The "problem" is that the facts don't fit the narrative.
o Google "says" this is to "help you keep track" of your receipts
But...
o Google never _told_ you about this specific cache.

That is a fact which seems to be true - right?
o So the fact does NOT fit the narrative.

That always bugs me (sort of like how the Gulf of Tonkin incident facts
didn't fit the narrative).

but I DID know they
cache and harvest VIRTUALLY EVERTHING they think they might make a
pedo on - and they DO NOT publicize it - and they DO NOT make it easy
- if it is possible at all - to prevent theirclandistine data
collection.

Clare,
EVERYONE knows that Google tracks almost everything you do in Gmail.
o https://policies.google.com/privacy

That's NOT what this thread is about
o That wouldn't be "news" for example.

After doing a bit of research (you DO know what that is, right??)

Clare,
I respect you for your knowledge, and even more that you admitted you
didn't know about this URL, which, while it's patently obvious that NOBODY
knew, you, at least, had the courage to admit that you didn't know it (even
though I _knew_ you didn't know it 'cuz I'm a logical rational person).

NOTE: Since Usenet is a casual medium, when I say "NOBODY", it's patently
accepted that this means "Almost Nobody", as people at Google certainly
knew.

However ... if you knew what my PhD is in, and from what school, and then
if you knew how many papers I've written, you wouldn't make that silly
childish taunt that I don't know what "research" is.

I'm not going to point out my papers, nor send you a copy of my degrees,
but rest assured I know how to do research in the formal sense.

So please don't play that game with me Clare, as there's likely almost
nobody on this ng who has more education than I do (plenty will have as
much, but very few will have more) so let's not go there again please.

For example, I already reported on the following, which dilutes my
narrative mind you, but like any scientist or engineer, I am beholden to
the truth and not to any particular interpretation of that truth.

Google _did_ mention, way back in 2013, that you could put this search term
in your Gmail search box, which is kind of sort of similar to the new
secret URL that we found out from the recent news reports::
label:^smartlabel_receipt

It's not the same thing, of course, but it's a step in that direction:
https://www.itworld.com/article/2711018/find-all-your-receipts-in-gmail-automatically.html

This move started in 2013 - and it was partly a move by Google to
make it difficult for anyone else to "harvest" the information - if
they want the information they have to buy it from Google.

Clare - that's a rational reasonable point, which I don't disagree with.
o Facts are easy for people who are rational to agree with.

There is
information about it on hubspot (Originally published Dec 13, 2013
10:07:00 AM, updated July 28 2017) at
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/g...l-marketers-nj

Thanks for that link, Clare, where, as you know, I read every reference
that people post in helpful responses to queries.
o How Google's Change to Gmail Images Affects Email Marketers
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/google-gmail-images-email-marketers-nj
"When recipients choose to load an image, they share a lot of information
about themselves, including their location and the kind of device they're
using. Marketers also learn, of course, that someone has opened their
email."

Notice that the images now come from Google instead of the sender:

"But now, Google is going to cache all these images itself. So when a
recipient loads an image, it will come from Google, not from the marketer."

Notice that Google actually _changes_ the email content:

"when a Gmail recipient opens an email, Google will have re-written the
email content to source any images from them. "

They explain it as a way to display images inline in their webmail
app.
more info at
https://litmus.com/blog/gmail-adds-i...u-need-to-know.
and
https://litmus.com/blog/gmail-adds-i...u-need-to-know

Both those URLs were the same:

From your prior article reference, we can summarize as "old" and "new"
styles of image processing:
(NOTE: I could be wrong but this is my take on the old/new process.)

OLD:
o Marketeer mails you the email containing a _unique_ image link
o You ignore that email & marketeer knows the link wasn't clicked
o Marketeer doesn't know if you opened the email though

If you _click_ on the image link, the Marketeer learns mo
o Marketeer knows you clicked on the image link
o But also - Marketeer gets information about your software

NEW:
o Marketeer mails you the email containing a _unique_ image link
o You ignore that email & marketeer knows you ignored that email!
o If you open the email, marketeer also knows you opened it.

WHY:
o Google re-wrote the email to link to a Google server instead
o The Google server asks for the unique link from the marketeer
o So the marketeer _only_ knows that you opened the email

Notice your URL below says this only works for WEB access to Gmail, so we
can presume that, oh, say, Thunderbird, might work differently.
o DECEMBER 9, 2013 What You Need To Know About Image Caching In Gmail
https://litmus.com/blog/gmail-adds-image-caching-what-you-need-to-know

There is also some question in my mind as to how "unique" the image link is
crafted, where, for example, these could all point, in the end, to the same
image, even as the link is unique to each person:
o http://domain.com/linktoperson1/image.jpg
o http://domain.com/linktoperson2/image.jpg
And
o http://domain.com/images/image1.jpg
o http://domain.com/images/image2.jpg
Where the web software effectively uses an automated symbolic-link (in
effect) where both image1.jpg and image2.jpg are actually "image.jpg".

If my assessment above is wrong, someone smarter will let me know.

It appears from this information that using something like MICROSOFT
OFFICE OUTLOOK as your mail client MAY solve the problem, as it
APPEARS the caching is done by the browser app (webmail).

Thanks for that information that each MUA may handle the image links
differently that Google re-writes, where your latter article inferred the
same thing by saying:
"Gmail has started caching images for users accessing Gmail via the
webmail interface: images are viewed only once on the original server while
successive views will originate from the cached image on Google¢s proxy
servers."

What's interesting about that comment is that the re-writing of your email
apparently occurs "on the fly" as you download the email from the IMAP
server to your device - which is the ONLY time that Google "can" know that
you're using a web-based interface.

Presumably, if you use, oh, say Outlook or Thunderbird as your MUA, then
the re-writing of the image link doesn't happen. ???

In summary Clare, I APPRECIATE your honesty, which bolsters your
credibility, since you, like me, speak facts and you look up those facts.

For my part, I _read_ your links, and summarized them, again, because I
care about my credibility so if I'm wrong, someone smarter than I am will
certainly let me know.

Still, I must point out that this image caching sub thread is interesting,
but I don't see it related to the fact that Google is secretly (apparently)
creating a web page of your free stuff, registration, and paid stuff (at
least), which Google _says_ is for you to use - but which is located at a
secret place that Google never told anyone about (as far as anyone yet can
tell).

That's why it's news.

The solution is what we're after here, which, may be:
o Switch to Proton Mail (or equivalent), or,
o Delete your receipts, or,
o Convert your receipts into non-scannable emails.

Any other viable solutions that intelligent people can propose?

On Sat, 18 May 2019 19:15:55 -0600, rbowman wrote:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/17/1...email-receipts

https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

The second link is from January 22, 2019. You can click on 'Archived
Versions' that go back to 9 June 1999. You can usually find a link to
the privacy policy by rooting around in your account information.

Do they provide a handy link on the front page? Hell no. Does Aunt Mary
religiously read TechCrunch, BetaNews, TheRegister, TheHackerNews, and
other sites that report on doings in the IT world? Hell no. Does she
know Zuckerberg looks at her as a cash cow? Hell no.

Hi rbowman,

Facts first; only then can rational logic ensue.

THANK YOU for this useful information!
o You are adding value to the potluck picnic to share with everyone.

I will read your cites, as my main point is twofold in this thread:
1. Initially: Inform users of this tool & find ways to ameliorate it
2. Currently: Agree with or Correct those who feel Google told us all along

The one thing about me is that all I care about are the actual facts.
o I will _modify_ my belief system (if necessary) based on the facts.

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)

It's why I don't have an imaginary belief system.
o Hence I _appreciate_ the facts you brought up.

Hence I read your facts with hopeful scientific ardor.
o Specifically _what_ and _when_ Google "told us" about this.

Here's The Verge article you referenced:
o May 17, 2019: Google has been tracking nearly everything you buy online ¡X see for yourself with this tool
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/17/18629789/google-purchase-history-gmail-email-receipts
"Google has been quietly keeping track of nearly every single online
purchase you¡¦ve ever made, thanks to purchase receipts sent to your
personal Gmail account, according to a new report today from CNBC. Even
stranger: this information is made available to you via a private web tool
that¡¦s been active for an indeterminate amount of time."
"Google did not say how long this tool has been active. "
"this tool, and the technology to collect and present the data it
provides, has existed quietly without a majority of Gmail users aware"
"google claims this difficult to find, hard to delete itemization of my
entire purchasing history is to "help me keep track of all my shopping
habits in one place, total BS. it's to help google keep track of all my
shopping habits in one place."

Bear in mind that, while the article mentioned this site tracks receipts,
even Apple receipts, it did not mention the fact that it tracked my "free"
stuff, such as a free electronic device shipped to me from my carrier, and
detailed mandatory government registration information for some things.

I'm too old to run this test to register for the draft, but if there are
any 18 year old born male people on this newsgroup, it would be interesting
to know if they also archived your mandatory selective service registration
receipt.

And anyone who points to the Google privacy policy is missing the point
since I'm not asking whether Google tracks us (they do); and I'm not asking
whether Google "said" they'd track us any way they could (they do)...

Facts first; then rational logic can ensue.

The twitter post in the The Verge article summed up the honest issue well:
a. If Google really wanted us to use this to "keep track" of our receipts
b. Why isn't this special web page listed _anywhere_ that anyone can find?

The logic doesn't fit the facts. (not yet anyway)

"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. 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.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/17/goog...delete-it.html On the one hand, gmailers shouldn't be surprised. It'sGoogle's mission to spy on everything they possibly canand exploit it in any way possible. On the other hand,most people just never even imagine that suchsleaze or such technical capabilities might exist. In terms of baldfaced lying, one example that comesto mind was when they were caught slurping any possibledata they could get from unprotected wifi with their streetviewcars. They flat-out denied it -- until it was discovered thata Google engineer had specifically written the software usedto do exactly that. Eric Schmidt had proposed to the Hillary campaign thathe could help her:http://www.itwire.com/government-tec...n-in-2014.html The sheer arrogance, immorality, and disregard for workers,voters, and pretty much everyone esle is stunning. Of course these examples could go on. But the generaltrend is that a bunch of geeks came up with a very goodproduct, then got big heads and got carried way with greed,eventually imagining themselves to be helping the worldwhile they steal everything they can get their hands onand believe their sheer genius is both proof of their goodintentions and justification for their megalomania.