This thread is about email providers, so let's stick to that context in reference to concerns on privacy. It's fair to say most people don't really care that Google or the other main providers harvest data to target ads in return for that service.That wasn't what I was suggesting.
The almost macho "I don't care about privacy" is what I was commenting on.
I work in technology, part of my engineering degree 25 odd years ago was in image processing. So I don't 'blithely' believe that it's accurate, I've read the proof that it is.I admire your ability to blithely believe that facial recognition is accurate to any degree, never mind being regulated.
China uses this surveillance to an astonishing extent.
But don't imagine its not happening elsewhere.
Have gross miscarriages of justice only come about since the dawn of facial recognition? The proper application of proven technology should help to reduce such cases.Lives have been destroyed by people being wrongly accused; poor quality forensics have left innocent people in prison for decades, some have lost their lives.
A so-called 'copy and paste' error saw Maurice McCabe wrongly accused of child abuse.
Nanny state ....which one eh? oh the one looking after our lives in this pandemic... Re wall st corporations, I agree 100% with you.Adblocker doesn't work for gmail, the ad's are embedded within the mail clients itself, and how they make the money is based on your activity and who you are emailing.
Gmail reads every single one of your emails/stores and keeps this data forever, they then sell your data to private companies, check the targeted ads within gmail and you'll see how particular they are to you.
It's also not a matter of "i have nothing to hide" it's about keeping the nanny state at bay, otherwise where does it end.
I work in this area so maybe i just prefer to keep what i do private from large American corps rather then let them sell on my data.
Also there is nothing for free.
I would argue that it was the belief in the technology that allowed the smear campaign to be perpetrated.With the McCabe case, it wasn't technology that implicated him, it was people. Indeed better application of technology would have made that error impossible.
No, I believe this was a far more sinister campaign waged by individuals to discredit him. There is no suggestion that any piece of technology decided he was guilty of anything he was accused of. Every bad decision there was human made.I would argue that is was the belief in the technology that allowed the smear campaign to be perpetrated.
granted this is off topic - but still a very important discussion. Perhaps as a moderator you might like to split the thread?