Do people of reasonable technical ability store their private data on the Internet (if so, for what gain?)

On 2020 Apr 28, , Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

"Carlos wrote

I doubt Google does datamining on the contents of google docs. But they
might.

I assume. That's their business model. And they lie.
So it would be crazy for them not to datamine everywhere
possible. And it's certain they'll lie about it. Remember
the streetview incident? They were caught collecting
any possible data from private wifi as they drove around.
Then they lied about that and said it was an accident.
Then they lied and said it was a "rogue engineer". They
just lie.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/0...ogle_slurp_ok/

It's an amoral corporation, run and staffed by people who
think they're amazing geniuses, who prefer to have their
cellphone tell them what they should do today, who think
they're helping the world, and most of them are game-addicted
geeks with the emotional age of about 11. Eric
Schmidt was supposed to be the staff adult, but he was worse.
We had a very morally questionable person managing a lot of
naive, savant children.

Schmidt tried to run Hillary's campaign in 2016. His plan was
to virtually steal the election by doing something like was done
with Brexit -- use datamining to engineer every individual vote.
In the process he even planned how they could exploit young
people to do the work, pay them a pittance, and fire them
all at the soonest possible moment. Yet another example of
a faulty personality who thinks he's so smart that democracy
and other peoples' rights are an obstacle to him helping
the world. (Sound familiar? Billy Gates... Lord Jobs...)

http://www.itwire.com/government-tec...idt-drew-up-dr
aft-plan-for-clinton-in-2014.html

Some might say the means would have justified the end to
keep Trump out. But as bad as Trump is, I can't see justifying
such dishonest, mean-spirited sleaze in order to keep him
out. And I'm not even sure Hillary would have been so much
better. Like Biden, she worked for the banks. But she was
also arrogant, seemingly believing it was her turn to be hotshot.
Politics? Who cares? Democratic values? Who cares? She just
wanted a turn at being boss and no doubt would have
continued her husband's tradition of plutocracy masquerading
as progressivism. Which is why she lost. The youth, especially,
saw through the scam.

Mayayana wrote:
123456789 wrote

I'm glad to hear that Google makes it difficult to enter someone's
account without the proper credentials...

I don't see where you get that. He had a password and was accessing
the account from the same IP address he's always accessed it from.
I'd call that crdentials.

Apparently not the correct credentials or you'd be able to get in.
Course it could be a Google screw-up but IMO very unlikely...

If you don't mind the hassle of having to get a text and enter a code
every time you check your email,

That's the more secure 2FA that Google offers and I agree it would be a
hassle. However Google also offers a less secure 2FA that verifies a new
device only *once*. That's the one I use. It keeps a bad guy from
signing in on a strange device even if he knows the password. But if he
happens to get possession of one of my authorized devices... :-O

What would have been *really* protecting his account would have been
if they'd set up secret questions, like everyone else does.

Many folks 'secret' questions can be guessed or researched so often are
not that secure. When required I use code names for the answers but of
course I have to be sure to record them.

But Google doesn't seem to have any such function. Why? Because
they're looking for excuses to...

Why do Google and Trump haters sound so similar...

On 2020 Apr 28, , Leo wrote
(in ndividual.Net):

On 2020 Apr 28, , Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

"Carlos wrote

I doubt Google does datamining on the contents of google docs. But they
might.

I assume. That's their business model. And they lie.
So it would be crazy for them not to datamine everywhere
possible...

Oops, I had no intention to respond to this thread. Sorry. Carry on.

leo

Mayayana wrote:
"123456789" wrote

| They disabled non-Google access (which they call less secure apps),
| giving the excuse that the account hadn't been accessed for awhile.
| I then *had to* give them a cellphone number and accept a text
| message in order to get into the settings. It wasn't an option. I
| looked through the alternatives repeatedly before deciding I'd have
| to give them a phone number.
|
| I must admit that I'm glad to hear that Google makes it difficult
| to enter someone's account without the proper credentials...

I don't see where you get that. He had a password and
was accessing the account from the same IP address he's
always accessed it from. I'd call that crdentials.
They acknowledged in the settings that the location of
his computer was one historically used. That is his location was
known from past usage. So he had his username, password,
and he was logging in from the same IP he'd always logged
in from. And they chose to define that as a likely hack.

My phone number/location was new, unknown to Google
and not near where my brother lives. Yet they accepted that
as a security test. That's not credentials. It's just mickey mouse
excuses for spyware and data collection.

You describe all kind of things 'they' 'did'. Did you actually speak
to them or is all of this only what their *website* 'did'?

[Rewind:]

They acknowledged in the settings that the location of
his computer was one historically used. That is his location was
known from past usage. So he had his username, password,
and he was logging in from the same IP he'd always logged
in from. And they chose to define that as a likely hack.

"in the settings" seems to confirm that you *were* logged in to the
*Google account*. If so, why didn't you just fix the 'Less secure app
access' setting?

Did you at any time try to login into the *Gmail* webmailer? In the
Gmail inbox there should have been a message from Google, describing the
alleged security problem and how to fix it.

Again, all of this is quite 'normal' for Google/Gmail, but what you're
telling us just doesn't add up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Google isn't being stupid. What I
*am* saying is that despite Google being stupid, you should be able to
jump through Google's hoops without needing to provide a phone number.


Demanding any old phone
number is nothing more than sleazy datamining. What would
have been *really* protecting his account would have been
if they'd set up secret questions, like everyone else does.
Even the IRS will let me in if I can answer the secret questions.
Like what was your first pet's name. That's a safe way to
allow people access and to let them get in if they've
forgotten their password.
But Google doesn't seem to have any such function. Why?
Because they're looking for excuses to tie their tracking of
your phone location and usage to your email ID.

[Still not defending Google:]

Your Recovery phone number doesn't have to be a smartphone, probably
can be a 'landline' and doesn't have to be the same as your normal phone
number, so tracking your location has little to do with it.

As to secret questions: That's one possibility with its advantages and
disadvantages. Google chose Recovery phone number or/and Recovery email
address. I use the latter.

In the funny-in-a-sarcastic-way department:

While checking some of these things in my Google account, I got a
'Security alert'/'New device signed in to' e-mail message and a
'Security alert for your linked Google Account'/'New sign-in to your
linked account' e-mail message! So there you go! :-)

"Frank Slootweg" wrote

| "in the settings" seems to confirm that you *were* logged in to the
| *Google account*. If so, why didn't you just fix the 'Less secure app
| access' setting?
|

Read my last post to you. You keep missing what
I'm saying. I logged in. I fixed it. But I couldn't log
in until I gave them a cellphone number to send an
extra code to. This all happened in connection with my
brother not logging in for several weeks. Something
triggered Google to flip the setting without permission.

| Your Recovery phone number doesn't have to be a smartphone, probably
| can be a 'landline' and doesn't have to be the same as your normal phone
| number, so tracking your location has little to do with it.
|

Probably can be a landline? Either it can or it
can't. Either way, my phone number(s) are none
of their business.

| Google chose Recovery phone number or/and Recovery email
| address. I use the latter.

But that wasn't set up. Even if I were to allow
Google to send me an email, there was no email
set up as the alternate for sending a code to.
Their offer was that I could give them one and
then they'd "let me know their decision" about
whether I'd provided sufficient evidence that my
brother was my brother. I'm guessing sufficient
evidence probably doesn't include non-gmail
secondary emails.

I find it amazing that reasonably intelligent, tech-
educated people would not only use such a service
but would even defend it.

"123456789" wrote

| Why do Google and Trump haters sound so similar...
|

Huh? You think I'm lying about my experience with
Google because I'm a liberal? Interesting. Actually
I'm not really political. I believe in fairness and common
decency, whatever party that is. Though I do feel that
psychopaths are probably not the best choice for
president.

But I do happen to have access to magical COVID
cures. If you want to give me your Gmail address I'll
be happy to send you my new catalog. There's a sale
this week on Windex (R) and syringes. If you prefer
Fantastik (R) I can send you an injector bottle for
20% off. Protect yourself and your family while you
can. With Windex (R) StreakFree (R) you can kill
all virus and get smooth skin at the same time. Order
4 and you get a free MAGA hat. Order 10 and you get an
official Donald J. Trump silver dollar. **

Order 20 and you also get a one-gallon jug of
dish soap, which will kill all virus, bacteria, mice,
mosquitoes, ticks, and Democrats on contact. You
only need one drop on your MAGA hat. It's a $79.99
value!!

** Note: This offer is for a commemorative coin only.
This coin is not legal tender and may not be composed
of silver or other metals. However, it is an official,
collectible coin and does, indeed, look sort of silver.

123456789 wrote

Why do Google and Trump haters sound so similar...

You think I'm lying about my experience with Google because I'm a
liberal?

Nope. I believe your experience. It's your paranoiac anti-Google rants
that I'm chuckling about (notice the winky?).

Though I do feel that psychopaths are probably not the best choice
for president.

And you have proved my point nicely...

xposts deleted, acow10 only

Mayayana wrote:
"Frank Slootweg" wrote

| It told me that due to a period of
| non-use they had disabled "insecure apps".
|
| Disabling and enabling "insecure apps" (actually 'Less secure app
| access' (https://myaccount.google.com/lesssecureapps)) is a *user*
| setting in the *Google* (*not* Gmail, *not* Thunderbird) account.
|

And that's what they turned off. And that's
what I re-enabled. And then it worked. And now
his email is working again. To reiterate:

They disabled non-Google access (which they call
less secure apps), giving the excuse that the account
hadn't been accessed for awhile. I then *had to* give them
a cellphone number and accept a text message in order
to get into the settings. It wasn't an option. I looked
through the alternatives repeatedly before deciding I'd
have to give them a phone number.

I disagree w/ some parts of your analysis, but not all of your criticism.

Various 'events' can cause google to tighten down gmail access which
typically requires accessing gmail via webmail, not a mail client, which
webmail access includes a captcha if the security feature is on.

Gmail *always* wants to try to get the user to provide an alternate
access method, preferably a cellphone number, but the process can be
otherwise handled w/ an alternate email address instead.

Google's purpose in this matter is to completely automate the common
problem of the user's account having had its security trigger pulled.
This can be caused by a number of different kinds of events and google
doesn't want to have to use a 'person' to solve the problem; so it is
all handled by either cellphone or alternate email and/or web captcha.

The business of less-secure apps doesn't mean non-google access but
actually means agents which can't do OAuth2, which Tb can do (now), but
some users don't have their Tb configured for OAuth2.

I don't want to defend all of google's policies in these matters, just
to clarify some details about how the security processes work.


--
Mike Easter

On 29/04/2020 03:02, Mike Easter wrote:
xposts deleted, acow10 only


In future deleted acow10 and leave other useless newsgroups so that
people of low intelligence can move to those newsgroups. There is no
need for this crap to be discussed here.





--
With over 1.2 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

b64 encoded junk html-poster wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
xposts deleted, acow10 only

There is no
need for this crap to be discussed here.


Someone who unconventionally (b64 From name, html body) posts msg/s to
usenet is hypocritical in such criticism.

I posted my msg in the acow10 group only because:
- that is where I read the thread
- both personae who I cited in my msg appear to subscribe to acow10
- your misdirected f/up ng deleted; I don't post msg/s to groups I
don't read


--
Mike Easter

On 29/04/2020 03:22, Mike Easter wrote:

Â*- your misdirected f/up ng deleted; I don't post msg/s to groups I
don't read


It doesn't matter;Â* There is nothing to read in mis-directed posts.Â*
When will you start using some common sense assuming it is still common
with common people or plebs.


--
With over 1.2 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

In article ,

Mayayana says...

This all happened in connection with my
brother not logging in for several weeks. Something
triggered Google to flip the setting without permission.

Perhaps he failed to respond promptly to security alerts from Google who
then upped the security on his account.

Also if inactive account manager is enabled, the entire account is
deleted if no activity is detected within a set time period as Google
assumes you have popped your clogs.

"This is just a reminder that Inactive Account Manager is enabled for
your Google Account.
Your current settings a
You will be notified 9 months after your last activity:
Delete your account once all actions have been completed."




--
Ken

In article ,

Mayayana says...

This all happened in connection with my
brother not logging in for several weeks. Something
triggered Google to flip the setting without permission.

Perhaps he failed to respond promptly to security alerts from Google who
then upped the security on his account.

Also if inactive account manager is enabled, the entire account is
deleted if no activity is detected within a set time period as Google
assumes you have popped your clogs.

"This is just a reminder that Inactive Account Manager is enabled for
your Google Account.
Your current settings a
You will be notified 9 months after your last activity:
Delete your account once all actions have been completed."




--
Ken

"Unsteadyken" wrote

| Perhaps he failed to respond promptly to security alerts from Google who
| then upped the security on his account.
|

Maybe. He couldn't have replied to a unilateral
decision by Google, since he was in the hospital.
Then again, if they were warning him that he faced
lockdown for not using the account, he wouldn't
be likely to get that message.

I always knew I didn't want gmail but I actually
didn't realize what a Rube Goldberg monstrosity it is.

| Also if inactive account manager is enabled, the entire account is
| deleted if no activity is detected within a set time period as Google
| assumes you have popped your clogs.
|

Thanks. I guess I should check that for him.

"Mike Easter" wrote

| Gmail *always* wants to try to get the user to provide an alternate
| access method, preferably a cellphone number, but the process can be
| otherwise handled w/ an alternate email address instead.

| Google's purpose in this matter is to completely automate the common
| problem of the user's account having had its security trigger pulled.

I was generally aware of that. They asked my very elderly
father to provide a phone # a couple of years ago. Without
hesitation he gave them his phone #. Which of course was
his landline. And he was sitting in the senior center.

The absurdity in this current case was that they wanted
a phone # in order to log in. In other words, the phone #
hadn't been registered earlier as a second security check.
They were happy to accept any old phone #. And with that
they were happy to grant account access. So anyone who
had somehow stolen my brother's password would still have
no trouble at all getting into his account.


| The business of less-secure apps doesn't mean non-google access but
| actually means agents which can't do OAuth2, which Tb can do (now), but
| some users don't have their Tb configured for OAuth2.
|

Interesting. Thanks. They didn't mention that.
At least not that I saw. Though my brother is on
XP, so I don't know if he can upgrade. And I can't
get there to do it for him. And it still remains that
none of this would have been a problem if Google
hadn't changed his personal settings that they have
no business touching.

But the advice I'm getting here is leading me to
think I should log back in to the settings and make
sure there are no other boobytraps.