Keep your cool Doug, it wont be long now:DQuote:
Originally posted by dougj
So I ask again, what's all the fuss about? Sign me up!!!
Printable View
Keep your cool Doug, it wont be long now:DQuote:
Originally posted by dougj
So I ask again, what's all the fuss about? Sign me up!!!
dougj
QUOTE..So I ask again, what's all the fuss about? Sign me up!!!
One thing is for certain,"hopefully" your mail should not get through my filters,as I don't want it,or any one Else's with spam in it..:D :D http://www.deceiver.org/pic/spam.gif
Gmail seems innocuous enough, but there are two things to consider:
First, Google has amassed a huge database of information concerning searches, queries etc. through the use of non-expiring cookies. That has people concerned enough, but now the email service can (and likely will) allow them to now link that "anonymous" data with an actual personal identity. There are users out there that never flush their cookies, and may not realize that google has been tracking their search requests for years.
Second, your emails may be retained indefinitely, even after you delete them. Why? May not seem like a big deal, but down the road do you like the idea of an organization having a catalogue of people you communicate with, discussions you've had, services subscribed to etc.?
I also have a third, but it's more speculative (and maybe a bit paranoid) on my part. ISP's are more or less absolved of responsibility for monitoring the traffic flowing through their networks, providing them a shield of legal indemnity. The catch is that if ISP's start monitoring their networks for some particular type of questionable or illegal content, then they're expected to monitor for everything and are held responsible for the traffic travelling on their networks. This type of protection prevents an organization like the RIAA from going after ISP's for allowing copyrighted material to be transferred among their subscribers.
If a soon-to-be-public organization like google has the technology in place to scan everyone's email for keywords with the right to do so granted by the users via the user agreement, it makes me wonder about the ability of agencies (government or private a la RIAA) to force Google through legal means to scan for questionable content. I'm not sure they'd be protected by the same don't ask-don't tell immunity ISP's have. I'm not a privacy expert or a lawyer, and I am a law abiding citizen (for the most part ;) ) but it still gives me cause for concern.
Anyways, I'm not slagging google, I use their services countless times in a day (although I flush my cookies regularly). I just think that in this day and age of digital technology and privacy issues, people need to be aware that something isn't necessarily what it seems to be.
(stepping of soap box now...)
Just my $0.02...
KV
Here's another one. Like Google's new service, Spymac is offering 1GB of storage.
"Unlike GMail, which will be supported by advertising, Spymac mail has no advertising, the posting says. In addition, Spymac offers customers POP3 access to e-mail accounts so users can get their e-mail through popular e-mail clients such as Microsoft's Outlook."
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...040604X,00.asp
Guess it all depends on who/what you want to believe? Like the definition of the original 'SPAM'. Believeitornot's pic says 'chopped pork and ham'. Aren't pork and ham the same thing? Then there's the original definition of the product= (S)cientifically (P)reserved (A)nimal (M)atter. :eek: :p :D
Ill have one of those accounts too then:)
Looks to me like the spin-miesters are in full force, here. This is from the Spymac website. Note especially the last paragraph:Quote:
Originally posted by DuaneB
Here's another one. Like Google's new service, Spymac is offering 1GB of storage.
"Unlike GMail, which will be supported by advertising, Spymac mail has no advertising, the posting says. In addition, Spymac offers customers POP3 access to e-mail accounts so users can get their e-mail through popular e-mail clients such as Microsoft's Outlook."
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/...040604X,00.asp
So, there is advertising. In this case, the ads appear to be generated by other members and, from what I can discern, are presented as banner ads. So, you use a POP3 client and you don't see the ads. But I wonder how else they'll deliver the content thats being paid for. Maybe instead of "ads" they deliver "useful information from contributing members". Who knows? I'd love to hear from somebody that's actually signed up with the service. On the suface it would appear to address the concerns peoplehave with GMail, but I wouldn't bet on it in the long run. There'll be a catch somewhere...Quote:
How do we do it?
Spymac is able to exist and grow thanks to integrated revenue streams that provide quality products and services to our visitors and members.
Auctions – The premiere destination for Apple users to buy and sell online.
Shop – Spymac has designed and produced its own line of accessories and branded merchandise. Visit the Spymac Shop for more information.
Hosting – Competitive web hosting packages for Mac users, starting at only $7 per month. Visit Spymac Hosting for more information.
Ads – From corporate customers like Microsoft to micro-campaigns placed using our Self-Serve Ad System, Spymac helps advertisers of all sizes reach a targeted and valuable demographic.
KV said it best, people need to be aware of what they're signing up for. What bothers me is when people complain that they actually have to give something in return for the "free" service. We should all have learned long ago, "ain't nothin' comes for free."
{And on a side note, what really bugs me is when I hear people talk about how much "free" time they get with their cell phone plans. "For $40 a month I get 1000 free minutes, but for $60 I can get 2500 free minutes. What a great deal!" YIKES!!}
It seems that the Germans have taken a dim view of email scanning anyway:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/08/gmail_germany/
Its interesting that the Germans consider all e-mail private. If the message is encrypted first, then I'd say there *is* an expectation of privacy, but in most cases, its transmitted as plain-text across a publicly accessible network. How is this in any way private? The parallel would be mailing a post card vs a sealed letter. It becomes the responsiblity of the sender to "privatize" the traffic. If they don't, then I'd say it's not private.
How's this for a GMail slogan: "All your mail are belong to us!" :-)
CAN THIS SPACE BE ACCESSED VIA FTP???
Doubtful they'd allow FTP access. Wouldn't want folks using all that space to store all the music they've stolen via the file "sharing" programs. (To those who've read my previous rants on this, my apologies! :))
Umn....I think it's an April Fools joke, people.
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/gmail.html
After all, it WAS released on April 1st. Sounds too good to be true to me...