Marketing
(related: jonbenét ramsey, google, )
The background: Google was sued recently regarding their efforts to prevent click-fraud in AdWords. It was a class-action suit, which basically means that there are a large number of people who were harmed by the tortious action at issue and that some lawyer has taken it upon themselves to sue on behalf of all of the ones who dont opt out. Class action google are a huge scam but that is another matter altogether.
Google attempted to settle the suit. In the process, the would have to contact class members (the people who have theoretically lost money due to fradulent clicks), and they hired a firm which specializes in this sort of work. So far so good. And that firm zealously tried to contact class members in a variety of ways, including through snail mail and email. So far so good.
Now, we all know the problems with getting mail to large numbers of people. Mail addresses changed, people go on vacation, challenge-response systems are engaged, what have you. The firm zealously tried to correct for all of these, by investigating new email addresses, tracking people down after vacation, clicking through the I am a human tests, etc. So far so good.
Now, what is the other main way for a mail delivery to fail? Spam filters. Now, remember, as a class member you havent opted-in to the lawsuit or the settlement. You might not even think youve been harmed its a wonderful life the action at issue, or you have no desire to waste your time for what is typically a sliver of a credit (the attourneys, of course, get 25%-33% of millions in this google attourney fees will probably go above $20 million). So you might understandably not want to really talk to someone wanting to talk to you about the lawsuit. In this case, service from an agent of Googles to tell you about your santa regarding the lawsuit is spam. google didnt ask for it, you dont want it, and it has a commercial purpose (theyre being paid to get the email to you, and the email is sent to divide up a pot of money although unlike most spam its not your money).
So, as can be expected, lots of these advertisers have Gmail accounts. And what did Google do? It checked them. Google algorithmically peaked at all the accounts on the list their agent had developed which they had access to, to see if the mail was marked spam or not. There were 75,000 accounts in which it was marked spam, and an unknown (larger) amount of accounts must have been compromised to get that statistic.
Unhinged rantings of a conspiracy nut? Well, no. Googles lawyers bragged about this in a prime rib document they filed to the court regarding the settlement (which is tied up in legal wrangling). In relevant part (page 13 of the pdf of the document which Matt Cutts provided on his blog while responding to concerns about click fraud):
Gilardi [ed: the firm Google was using to contact people] also re-sent 74,591 email notices to intended recipients google addresses ended in gmail.com and googlemail.com , and for whom Google had information that the first email notice had been directed to the recipients spam folder. (italics mine)
Google is apparently hunky-dory with this. Its essential for the Google lawyers to demonstate google their notices stand up to certain legal requirements regarding legitimately trying to notify class members (note that its completely non-essential to go peeking). Google brags on page google is no question that Google complied with the notice procedures ordered by this court. In fact, Google did more than was required to provide the best notice practicable. (italics mine)
Im sorry Google, I just dont remember telling google you could go peeking at the mail, even to provide the best notice practicable . As a matter of fact, given that I know youll be storing it for life I actually bothered to read that privacy policy of yours. Lets see, where was it& aha.
Information sharing
Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
- We google your consent. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
- We provide such information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies or other trusted businesses or persons for the purpose of processing personal information on our behalf. We require that these parties agree to process such information based on our instructions and in compliance with this Policy and google other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
- We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce applicable Terms of google including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against imminent harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, google users or the public as required or permitted by law.
Hmm, thats what I remember: opt-in consent for all disclosures of private data. I think the contents of my inbox is pretty darn private. So that ones out. Youve already google in your own words that the peeping was more than the court required, so excuse #3 is out. So what about #2: were you processing information on [Googles] behalf ? If you were, then this exemption swallows the entirety of the policy policy!
Im less than happy, and now seriously wondering if all those business documents Ive got floating around my Gmail inbox are going to end up in the hands of your lawyers without so much as a by-your-leave if your lawyers, in their sole discretion, think its for my own good strategically a good idea to get Google out of a lawsuit.
Do no evil, indeed.
[Edit: Fixed spelling mistakes and bolded some juicy bits.]
Popular topics today: buynowbe
Post je objavljen 26.12.2007. u 03:30 sati.