|
T O P I C R E V I E W
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
 posted November 18, 2010 04:27
____ Ask a Geek!
____ I have been using the same ISP for fifteen years, as you could guess that entitles me to lots of SPAM. WHO has the best Web based E-Mail, I do not want IM, or FaceBook like services just plain simple E-Mail.
|
Ashitaka
Member # 4924
|
posted November 18, 2010 05:45
google
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 18, 2010 06:06
____ Ash, you had me until I read the legal, and Services popped up. I only want a simple mailer, NO Face Book Type BS.
|
GrumpySteen
Member # 170
|
posted November 18, 2010 09:27
You don't have to subscribe to any of Google's other stuff. In fact, you don't have to use their interface.
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 18, 2010 11:05
____ GS. In their UELA there have several paragraphs about them owning all correspondence, I and several others exchange info on projects that could be awarded patients, in fact there are two that are in search mode right now. I would hate to lose a patient because it was transmitted via their system. Would you take that risk??
|
GrumpySteen
Member # 170
|
posted November 18, 2010 20:00
Gmail Legal Notices
Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account. We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service.
Or, if you prefer, the legalese
9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist).
Google's TOS very explicitly says that they don't own your email and that they have no rights beyond what they need to send it to the party that you've asked for it to be sent to.
I have no idea how you misread that and came to the conclusion that it says that they're claiming ownership of your data, but you're completely wrong.
Aside from all that, if you're freaking out over the idea that someone is going to steal your ideas, you bloody well need to be encrypting your email at your end and sending only encrypted data. Unencrypted email is completely, absolutely, 100% insecure.
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 19, 2010 03:29
____ Please read section 11. Content license from you 11.1/11.4
____ And yes we do use encryption.
____ This past week I did some stock look ups (Google), trading prices, the next day I am Spammed about emerging IPOs
|
Ashitaka
Member # 4924
|
posted November 19, 2010 04:20
ok, google w/ FirePGP, doesn't matter if they think they own the mail or not, it would take more effort than you are worth to read your it.
|
Callipygous
Member # 2071
|
posted November 19, 2010 07:34
Google is generally thought to have the best webmail, Yahoo's service isn't bad and they are the biggest, and then there's Microsoft's Hotmail. I don't think that any of them are particularly trustworthy, and email in any case is not a particularly secure system of communication, so think of it as public and don't worry.
This is one of the clearer examples of the consequences of our reluctance to pay for online services. Google is only acting like any other company looking after it's customers, and it's customers are of course not us, but the advertisers. They pay the bills and want as much info on us as possible, to target their advertising as accurately as possible. Even if you don't have a Google account MoMan, I'd guess just from using their search engine that Google knows a lot more about you than you'd like, and after that story about the Google Earth vans scraping passwords, I wouldn't place to much faith on their "do no evil" motto. Nobody collects information in that amount of detail by accident.
If you want to try an alternative to the big boys, I've heard good reports about FastMail, but you do have to pay for it, unless your requirements are minuscule, but then again that does of course make you the customer they want to please. Here's a description from a couple of years back, and as far as I know, she's still a satisfied customer.
Personally I use Gmail.
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 19, 2010 07:50
____ Callipygous, You hit the nail square on, Google, HotMail, Yahoo are all advertiser driven. The ISP I am using has a vested interest in keeping me happy, However their SPAM filters are either too solid or not solid enough, depends from month to month.
____ The reason I was thinking of dropping the current ISP was if we get wireless, I would drop the dial-up account however that possibility appears to be fading.
|
GrumpySteen
Member # 170
|
posted November 19, 2010 20:58
TheMoMan wrote:
____ Please read section 11. Content license from you 11.1/11.4
I have read it. It's fairly standard boilerplate language that says that you give them the right to transmit the emails that you ask them to transmit. You aren't going to find an email provider that doesn't require that you give them the same right because the whole idea behind email is for the email to be transmitted to a third party.
And if you're encrypting everything locally, why are you freaking out over any of this in the first place? Neither Google nor any other email provider can read the encrypted mail.
|
dragonman97
Member # 780
|
posted November 19, 2010 21:56
My 2¢ on free e-mail, TOS, and privacy:
Best e-mail: Google
Best TOS, last time I looked: Hotmail (can't speak for MS / Live / whatever)
Best privacy: A toss up.
IMHO, Google is /smart/ and while they push boundaries a bit too far at times, they *know* that they must respect your privacy, if only because people like me worry about online security. Facebook, OTOH, does *not* think about privacy in any real capacity, and appears to be severely devoid of ethical standards. (That's not to say there aren't some strong privacy features in Fb, but they're pretty well hidden, and don't always work.)
I'd say that I think companies like Yahoo! & Microsoft are relatively disinterested in the actual content of your e-mail, because I generally don't view them as 'smart enough' to desire such content. I tend to think Yahoo! is strictly after showing you large flashy ads, provided by the highest bidder. Taking the elegant approach like Google just isn't Yahoo's style, and so mining your e-mail wouldn't be worth the dev dollars to them. Microsoft has a variety of profitable offerings, and as I see it, uses their online offerings only to build their brand power. Any money they make off ads are really just fringe benefits.
However, Yahoo! has a pretty bad track record on human rights, w.r.t. privacy, and I don't think MS is much better.
And so we circle back to the obvious favorite: Google.
(I can't even discuss the quality of Hotmail/whatever, because Google just blew it away for me, and I stopped paying attention to it years ago.)
P.S. I can't stress enough Steen's point about being able to use a mail client.
Almost none of the other 'majors' offer this (save for perhaps AOL), and it's yet another part of their notable dataliberation.org project.
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 20, 2010 02:32
____ Because, Section 11.1 in not much different than the the assignment of intellectual properties agreement I had to sign with my employer in 1972 and repeat each seven years until I retired 2005. Two of those ideas had nothing to do with the Transportation industry. The other two did benefit my employer. One they took and never used. Now hear this that is why!! ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
|
dragonman97
Member # 780
|
posted November 20, 2010 14:25
Section 11.1 cannot realistically apply in the bad way for e-mail.
That TOS is for all of Google. Some people use services like Blogger or Picasa, where their content is distributed widely. Obviously for such services, they must have the right to retransmit 'your content.'
Steen's earlier link, which may also be readily found searching on 'gmail tos' clearly states your ownership of your e-mail.
|
quantumfluff
Member # 450
|
posted November 20, 2010 15:15
There is obviously some disagreement as to interpret section 11. Does anyone mind if I forward this thread to Google's privacy team? That might lead to a clarification in wording.
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 20, 2010 15:48
____ Having paid for and obtaining patient protection on five occasions, I do not want to expose myself again. I do not really care what Google says, if they state that intellectual content I already have is safe, but?
|
GrumpySteen
Member # 170
|
posted November 20, 2010 22:34
TheMoMan wrote:
I do not really care what Google says, if they state that intellectual content I already have is safe, but?
Then you should not use email from any provider.
Email, by its very nature, is transmitted from your email service provider to third party servers. From there it is relayed repeatedly through other third party servers until it reaches the party that you've specified as the destination. This is how all email works.
Any email provider that tells you otherwise is lying (which is ironic since this seems to be a "feature" that would gain your trust). Any email provider whose TOS doesn't state that they have the right to retransmit the information you give them is still assuming that right, just without notifying you (once again, ironically, earning your trust by being deceptive).
Encryption is the only solution. With encryption, the third party's intentions become irrelevant since they cannot read the information that you're sending, much less do anything with it.
Here...this might help you understand.
That is more or less what unencrypted email looks like when it goes across the internet. Plain, easy-to-read text. Every server that relays unencrypted email can read it, save a copy, delete it, alter it or anything else the owner of the server wants to do with it. There is no security and everything is done on the honor system. When you send an unencrypted email, you are making that information available to the entire world and trusting that they will all look the other way and not read it.
Encryption is the only way to avoid all that.
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 21, 2010 04:46
____ First off I know how E-Mail is sent, I was in a SPY SQUADRON in the USN. I am aware of the dangers and supposed work arounds. The only reason I was looking as it seemed that I no longer would need the ISP I use for Dial-up. That is not the case at this point, and I might keep that ISP just for their mail & news server.
____ From the grand-son of a Judge it sounds to me like I am giving them an errevokable assignment of property rights.
____ If I hold a Copyright, Trademark, or Patent. They can not claim owner-ship. However if I do not they want to know that the traffic is not owned by some one else. These means to me that some where there is a data mining service looking for key words.
____ Now here is where my interest really is:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=272844
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 21, 2010 06:41
____ GS, You stated that you have a data2go unit, can roaming be turned off? From Sprint, because I live in a fringe area it is possible that the unit could lock onto some one elses tower. Once I hit so much much data via roaming they shut me off. Not wanting to pay for the rest of the month after they have shut me off I would be urinated. If roaming can be shut off, it would prevent me from roaming and the upper limit.
|
GrumpySteen
Member # 170
|
posted November 21, 2010 08:52
As far as I can tell, the Broadband2Go devices are locked-down and incapable of connecting to any other network, so roaming is not a problem. If it can't connect to a Sprint tower, it doesn't connect at all.
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
posted November 21, 2010 10:50
____ GS, I had called Sprint on that matter, and was informed that the MiFi will seek the best CDMA signal, if that is roaming and I exceed some limit they will block access until the next billing month.
____ Now the data2go dongle may be different, I do not have any definite answer to that question. I do know that the CDMA Boost phones from VirginMobileUSA will only use Sprint towers, roaming is locked out.
|
|
