Google will make it easy for strangers to email you(marco.org)
marco.org
Google will make it easy for strangers to email you
http://www.marco.org/2014/01/09/more-google-sleaze
106 comments
A minor nitpick: the default setting is "Anyone on Google+" so they don't have to have any relationship with you at all.
Does anyone on Google+ currently need to have a relationship with you to send you email?
They do need to know my email address, which isnt publicly available.
They can add me on google+, which I dont care about, I do however care about anyone who can sign up an account sending me annoying emails.
> anyone on its social network will be able to send messages to your Gmail inbox.
i don't get it. isn't that how email works? what people are currently not allowed to send messages to my gmail inbox?
i don't get it. isn't that how email works? what people are currently not allowed to send messages to my gmail inbox?
The difference is that you don't need to know what the person's email address is.
On Facebook, you can send a message to anyone from their profile, but it shows up within Facebook rather than the person's e-mail client (and it shows up in 'other' too.)
Edit: Facebook did not email me the last time I received something in my Other inbox (but that was a couple of years ago); perhaps that has changed?
Edit2: Being able to send a Google+ message from your e-mail client is a nice convenience that takes advantage of the fact that Google owns both properties. (It would be nice if it also provided a lookup for Facebook users.) I think that is all that this is, which means there is no controversy. I imagine you could already write someone a message that shows up in their email without knowing what their email address is by messaging them within Google+. If that is the case, this change is purely an added convenience that doesn't impact spamming at all.
On Facebook, you can send a message to anyone from their profile, but it shows up within Facebook rather than the person's e-mail client (and it shows up in 'other' too.)
Edit: Facebook did not email me the last time I received something in my Other inbox (but that was a couple of years ago); perhaps that has changed?
Edit2: Being able to send a Google+ message from your e-mail client is a nice convenience that takes advantage of the fact that Google owns both properties. (It would be nice if it also provided a lookup for Facebook users.) I think that is all that this is, which means there is no controversy. I imagine you could already write someone a message that shows up in their email without knowing what their email address is by messaging them within Google+. If that is the case, this change is purely an added convenience that doesn't impact spamming at all.
>The difference is that you don't need to know what the person's email address is.
And that prevents what exactly... people sending you email? I don't get it.
And that prevents what exactly... people sending you email? I don't get it.
Email has a light-weight de facto security system where people can't send you an email without knowing your address. Obviously, this isn't perfect, and it was never truly a security feature, but, nevertheless, it is there, and for all of its manifold and obvious faults, it mostly works this way. People are used to this. Taking it away will bother people.
Some people are really touchy about receiving mail from anyone they don't already know. Based on this thread, quite a few people.
Except that Facebook will also email you about that unless you opt-out just like Google+.
Facebook didn't staple their social network onto a non-social-network service after the fact, and then demand you sign up for it. Not everyone on Google+ actually wants to be on Google+.
> The difference is that you don't need to know what the person's email address is.
Now they need to know a different piece of pseudo-public information, your G+ username. Isn't this just a lateral shift?
I mean, there's still a "report spam" button, right?
Now they need to know a different piece of pseudo-public information, your G+ username. Isn't this just a lateral shift?
I mean, there's still a "report spam" button, right?
Even better, pretty much anytime anybody does anything on my facebook page I get an email from FB letting me know about it.
Marco has clearly just lost it.
Marco has clearly just lost it.
But that person isn't directly emailing you.
And you can turn it off.
Exactly. Perhaps parent has lost it.
Good lord these Facebook / Google hate posts are getting out of control and are becoming comical in their faux rage IMO. Do we have a name for a new meme where if a company makes more than X billions of dollars we automatically hate them no matter what they do?
My email address has never been opt-in, ever since I started using email back in 1994.
Don't want people to email / communicate with you, maybe you shouldn't sign up for a social network? Google is linking your GoogleMail inbox to your Google+ account to facilitate communication. Don't like it? Opt out and calm down.
My email address has never been opt-in, ever since I started using email back in 1994.
Don't want people to email / communicate with you, maybe you shouldn't sign up for a social network? Google is linking your GoogleMail inbox to your Google+ account to facilitate communication. Don't like it? Opt out and calm down.
The point is that we want to like Google, but they're making it difficult. Quit confusing frustration for hate.
You're right that we can delete our G+ account. The point is that we're trying to explain to Google why it might not be in their best interest to add 'features' like this, at least without an opt-out mechanism.
You're right that we can delete our G+ account. The point is that we're trying to explain to Google why it might not be in their best interest to add 'features' like this, at least without an opt-out mechanism.
There is an opt-out mechanism, which is mentioned in the original Gmail blog post.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i1l-4aC-wpk/Us3x3EySkOI/AAAAAAAABM...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i1l-4aC-wpk/Us3x3EySkOI/AAAAAAAABM...
Opt out is located at: Gmail Settings > Email Via Google+ > Who can email you via your Google+ profile? > No one.
Sorry. I should have phrased it as 'with opt-out as the default.'
This is very similar to the Snapchat snafu, and they handled it just as poorly.
These are both examples of what's wrong with growth hacking.
This is very similar to the Snapchat snafu, and they handled it just as poorly.
These are both examples of what's wrong with growth hacking.
Thanks,
I'm aware that there is an opt out, but thats not really the point. gmail was pitched as the way webmail should be, and thats how I use it. I put up with google scanning my mail to provide tailored ads for this service. Why do I also need to be vigilant for regular changes that google make that negatively affect my privacy?
Nobody wants to use google+, if google keeps trying to shove it down peoples throats, nobody is going to use google.
I don't understand why so many people defend google on this?
I'm aware that there is an opt out, but thats not really the point. gmail was pitched as the way webmail should be, and thats how I use it. I put up with google scanning my mail to provide tailored ads for this service. Why do I also need to be vigilant for regular changes that google make that negatively affect my privacy?
Nobody wants to use google+, if google keeps trying to shove it down peoples throats, nobody is going to use google.
I don't understand why so many people defend google on this?
Except I didn't sign up for a social network. I signed up for an email account. Thats all I want, plain simple email. But every few months google fucks me over, tries merging accounts, creates google+ accounts in my name.
Why should I have to opt out of all this crap, when all I ever wanted was god damn email. Google has delusions of being a social network. If they want to add these conveniences for the three people that use google+ fine, but for gods sack make them opt in.
Why should I have to opt out of all this crap, when all I ever wanted was god damn email. Google has delusions of being a social network. If they want to add these conveniences for the three people that use google+ fine, but for gods sack make them opt in.
It's a free service; you pay with your inconvenience so that Google can milk those who don't opt out.
If you prefer not to pay with inconvenience but with dollars , there are some great paid providers out there.
If you prefer not to pay with inconvenience but with dollars , there are some great paid providers out there.
So? When somebody messages me on FB, I also get an email in my inbox. What's the difference here? I'm equally annoyed.
When you reply to someone's Facebook message it's just Facebook to Facebook, no actual email address is shown (assuming A. you don't follow the person and B. they've kept their profile hidden). With Google+ if the person responds they will see your email address.
The uproar is over someone being able to send email to you using your name (or your G+ profile in this case) without you explicitly giving them your email address... I don't get it either
Those who know your name but not your email address.
If Google built this as "people can send you messages on Google+," and you get a notification in G+, wouldn't that be perfectly normal for a social network? And in addition to that notification, you get an email, saying that "John Smith has sent you a message on Google+," isn't that pretty normal as well? Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn all do this by default.
I don't think it's that much different if the from: tag is changed from "Google+ Notifications" to "John Smith" and the subject is changed accordingly. The in-Gmail treatment looks reasonable to me, based on Google's blog post. [edited for clarity]
I don't think it's that much different if the from: tag is changed from "Google+ Notifications" to "John Smith" and the subject is changed accordingly. The in-Gmail treatment looks reasonable to me, based on Google's blog post. [edited for clarity]
I mean, I don't use Gmail, or G+, but isn't innovation in messaging a good thing? Mail needs a good rethink, and yeah, maybe I'd prefer it to be by someone other than Google, but I have a hard time seeing malicious intent here.
You can send a private message to anyone on Google+ that way right now.
A limiting factor is that unless you are following that person, or they are following you, there might be too many matches to the name for Google+ to find the right John Smith, for example.
A limiting factor is that unless you are following that person, or they are following you, there might be too many matches to the name for Google+ to find the right John Smith, for example.
Plus, One actually has much more control over my inbox than one does over Google+ Notifications.
By the time Google wins the social network war, it probably won't even be worth winning. The social network will be like usenet of last generation. Meanwhile they'll have succeeded in upsetting all the power users and uber geeks, who are the people lending credibility to their brand. And I certainly don't see the Snapchat generation coming along for the Google+ ride either.
This is really interesting.
Google seems deadset on catching up to facebook, but facebook is already trying to catchup to snapchat & the next wave of "social" - which seems decidedly more private.
It's almost as if by trying to catchup to FB - google is only falling further behind.
Google seems deadset on catching up to facebook, but facebook is already trying to catchup to snapchat & the next wave of "social" - which seems decidedly more private.
It's almost as if by trying to catchup to FB - google is only falling further behind.
I like it when Marco quotes Gruber or Gruber quotes Marco. It's like a cyclone of fucknozzlery whipping itself into the perfect pointless storm of impotent mactard rage.
Regarding the feature it seems pretty good. It will definitely help normal people find each other and communicate more and maybe will cut down on people mailing me because they make mistyped or guessed someone else's address.
Regarding the feature it seems pretty good. It will definitely help normal people find each other and communicate more and maybe will cut down on people mailing me because they make mistyped or guessed someone else's address.
You can get grumpy about the hyperbolic language, but this defense of Google -- and most others I'm seeing here -- is rather missing what those of us who are increasingly exasperated with Big G are annoyed about. Let's try it without the cursing, shall we?
Google has taken a collection of services that are not functionally related -- a search engine, a mapping engine, a hosted mail service, a social network, a video sharing site, a web-based document editing system with cloud storage, and more -- and made the following unilateral decisions:
(1) The default is to have one Google account that links you to all services. (2) You are strongly encouraged to use your real name for that account. (3) The default for linking services together is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Google puts a lot of effort into making you have one account across all of Google. The signal difference between them and, well, everyone else (with the possible exception of Facebook) is that it's increasingly difficult to not be part of the Google ecosystem. Yes, the median HN reader can come up with a laundry list of other services to replace everything Google, but most users can't and even most technically competent users probably aren't going to.
The upshot of the three principles above is that in practice, anyone with a Google Account -- which is at this point probably a substantial percentage of the world population -- has a very good chance of being able to send email to you if they have no other information but your real name.
Is that the end of privacy as we know it? Of course not. But do you really, really think that only crazy weirdo Apple users would possibly find it just a touch troubling that Google thinks it's okay for this to be the default? Do you really think it's insane for me to think that Google should perhaps consider that their users might deserve privacy from both other Google users and Google itself, as opposed to just the "privacy" granted by better spam blocking algorithms and SSL?
Google has taken a collection of services that are not functionally related -- a search engine, a mapping engine, a hosted mail service, a social network, a video sharing site, a web-based document editing system with cloud storage, and more -- and made the following unilateral decisions:
(1) The default is to have one Google account that links you to all services. (2) You are strongly encouraged to use your real name for that account. (3) The default for linking services together is opt-out rather than opt-in.
Google puts a lot of effort into making you have one account across all of Google. The signal difference between them and, well, everyone else (with the possible exception of Facebook) is that it's increasingly difficult to not be part of the Google ecosystem. Yes, the median HN reader can come up with a laundry list of other services to replace everything Google, but most users can't and even most technically competent users probably aren't going to.
The upshot of the three principles above is that in practice, anyone with a Google Account -- which is at this point probably a substantial percentage of the world population -- has a very good chance of being able to send email to you if they have no other information but your real name.
Is that the end of privacy as we know it? Of course not. But do you really, really think that only crazy weirdo Apple users would possibly find it just a touch troubling that Google thinks it's okay for this to be the default? Do you really think it's insane for me to think that Google should perhaps consider that their users might deserve privacy from both other Google users and Google itself, as opposed to just the "privacy" granted by better spam blocking algorithms and SSL?
If you already have a Google+ account, which is a requirement to portray yourself as a victim of this feature, it's already possible for anyone else with a Google+ account to annoy you by sharing stuff directly with you, which with the default notification settings in Google+ will cause you to get an email. I don't see how today's feature is worse.
Now, I see the opposite of what you see. Because my gmail address consist of just my name, and my name is common, I _already_ get loads and loads of mail destined for other people with my name. I find this annoying and I have no way to stop it. With this new feature, at least people who are using Gmail to compose their message will have a better chance of finding the right person, because the contacts in the composer show the profile picture from Google+. That means I will get less of this mail. It also means that the mail I do get will go to the "Social" tab of my Gmail inbox, which I don't even display by default, so it will be out of my face entirely. And, finally, I have a way to retaliate, because deleting their messages means those misguided people can never contact me via Google+ again. Nice.
As for your other points I don't think they are even worth addressing. You aren't seriously proposing that Google should maintain separate account systems for Gmail, Google search, Google maps, Google+, Youtube, Docs and Drive, and every other product, are you? Can't you imaging the password maintenance/hijacking/support nightmare that would ensue?
Now, I see the opposite of what you see. Because my gmail address consist of just my name, and my name is common, I _already_ get loads and loads of mail destined for other people with my name. I find this annoying and I have no way to stop it. With this new feature, at least people who are using Gmail to compose their message will have a better chance of finding the right person, because the contacts in the composer show the profile picture from Google+. That means I will get less of this mail. It also means that the mail I do get will go to the "Social" tab of my Gmail inbox, which I don't even display by default, so it will be out of my face entirely. And, finally, I have a way to retaliate, because deleting their messages means those misguided people can never contact me via Google+ again. Nice.
As for your other points I don't think they are even worth addressing. You aren't seriously proposing that Google should maintain separate account systems for Gmail, Google search, Google maps, Google+, Youtube, Docs and Drive, and every other product, are you? Can't you imaging the password maintenance/hijacking/support nightmare that would ensue?
> fucknozzlery, mactard
Is this kind of thing really necessary? OK, you don't like them, we get it. But language like this does nothing to elevate the tone of the discussion. Sorry to nitpick on what may well be a valid point (I don't follow either of their writing enough to know), but come on - why not just to be a bit more civil?
Is this kind of thing really necessary? OK, you don't like them, we get it. But language like this does nothing to elevate the tone of the discussion. Sorry to nitpick on what may well be a valid point (I don't follow either of their writing enough to know), but come on - why not just to be a bit more civil?
This discussion was already beyond redemption. I'm just playing down to its level. If you want to have a serious discussion about this Google product feature, let's start. These two clowns excerpting each others' fact-free rants hasn't started that discussion.
Marco knows his audience. If his goal was to publish a blog post that made it to the top of HN, he succeeded.
That is never his goal.
Well, I am new to the (HN) scene here.
I agree the language was uncalled for but I've followed these two (bloggers) in the past. And trust me on this, original commenter (OC) is spot on. These two bloggers (and the elk) unabashedly post in this disgusting manner, all the time - so much that me and many people suspect, from time to time, they are on Apple's payroll. It's like a blind fanaticism, one which doesn't retain even basic logic and self respect. It's not "Apple does right", but they rather like "It's only Apple that does it right". It goes beyond fanboyism.
Maybe OC should have tried harder looking for civilised words to convey his emotions.
I agree the language was uncalled for but I've followed these two (bloggers) in the past. And trust me on this, original commenter (OC) is spot on. These two bloggers (and the elk) unabashedly post in this disgusting manner, all the time - so much that me and many people suspect, from time to time, they are on Apple's payroll. It's like a blind fanaticism, one which doesn't retain even basic logic and self respect. It's not "Apple does right", but they rather like "It's only Apple that does it right". It goes beyond fanboyism.
Maybe OC should have tried harder looking for civilised words to convey his emotions.
>they are on Apple's payroll. It's like a blind fanaticism, one which doesn't retain even basic logic and self respect.
The latter has never required the former.
The latter has never required the former.
I personally think the language is fitting, given the language and vitriol in the OP...
I for one enjoyed the coinage. Fucknozzlery is a wonderfully verbal word.
I was almost upvoting this due to the use of creative language, but you're right. Best not to promote this sort of behaviour before all of HN descents into clever cursing.
Personally while Google is not perfect, regardless of your opinion on this I think overblowing this distracts from the real problems.
marco.org (which shows ads - don't worry, I removed it for you) writes:
You’re just eyeballs. Body parts and ad-targeting data. Google doesn’t care about you at all. You’ve tolerated enough already that it’s pretty clear you’re not really going anywhere.
Couldn't you say the same about any company? Say, developers and Apple?
You're just dollar signs and app figures. Apple doesn't care about you at all. You've tolerated enough already that it's pretty clear you're not really going anywhere.
You’re just eyeballs. Body parts and ad-targeting data. Google doesn’t care about you at all. You’ve tolerated enough already that it’s pretty clear you’re not really going anywhere.
Couldn't you say the same about any company? Say, developers and Apple?
You're just dollar signs and app figures. Apple doesn't care about you at all. You've tolerated enough already that it's pretty clear you're not really going anywhere.
No, you can't necessarily say that about other companies. Apple, for instance, doesn't have an ad-sponsored business model. Its offerings have to be attractive to end-users, or its products won't command their premium.
Google's offerings have to be attractive to end-users. Otherwise end-users will not use them and Google won't be able to sell targeted advertising any more.
Next.
Next.
Google is freer to make concessions that are unfavorable to users because those concessions are subsidized by third parties that do not meaningfully exist to subsidize concessions for Apple.
Google promised to not be evil.
Please, if Corporations truly are people, then they're psychopaths. Corporations will do whatever it takes to make a buck. Expecting them to have a moral center is like expecting a shark to do calculus.
Many moons ago, when the money flowed freely and they faced no existential threats. Google's a corporation like any other, and better than most. That doesn't mean their founding principle is benevolence.
I actually don't understand the sound and fury over this; it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Marco is a bit too vitriolic about this, but I think the main point stands: Letting anybody email you, even if you have tried to keep your email address private, is a pretty stupid idea. It should default to opt-in or possibly default to allowing your G+ contacts to mail you.
What, exactly, makes it stupid? Worst-case scenario: a few people email you, you get annoyed, delete their emails, and opt-out. Am I missing something?
The part where you opt-in.
The point of my comment is that it's perfectly fine without opt-in.
I think it's the "you get annoyed" step that people would prefer to avoid by default, rather than having it imposed on them by default.
I understand that, and it is perfectly fine to have that opinion, you just may find that many disagree with that opinion.
More specifically, the point of my comment was to give several reasons why opt-out was okay, and in return I was hoping to get a contradictory perspective providing reasons why it's not okay.
A discussion that never goes beyond "I (dis)agree" isn't much of a discussion.
A discussion that never goes beyond "I (dis)agree" isn't much of a discussion.
Sounds fair enough. Though in my defense opt out isnt just "I disagree", its I disagree because of the method by which I am automatically signed up for an additional feature which I disagree with.
1. This was not a feature that I originally signed up for, and increases the possibility of irritating/trivial items to be sent to me, I have a spam filter for things like this and in general would rather not mark google as spam, they send me a good number of other things which I do find useful (which seems to be an abuse of the "trust" however thin that I have with them).
2. My private email is perceived as somewhat sacrosanct even though it is an obvious federated system. A somewhat apt analogy is my home address, while some people could definitely find it through various means and communication happens all the time by parties I do not want to send me mail, I do not give it nor do I invite strangers to approach it, and I especially dont like it when a friend of a friend gives out my address to strangers.
3. In general, opt-out features of social networks are by design an anti-feature meant to drive more engagement for them, and has little to no perceived benefit to me. (Yes you can say facebook does it, and that is why I dont have a facebook account)
Better?
1. This was not a feature that I originally signed up for, and increases the possibility of irritating/trivial items to be sent to me, I have a spam filter for things like this and in general would rather not mark google as spam, they send me a good number of other things which I do find useful (which seems to be an abuse of the "trust" however thin that I have with them).
2. My private email is perceived as somewhat sacrosanct even though it is an obvious federated system. A somewhat apt analogy is my home address, while some people could definitely find it through various means and communication happens all the time by parties I do not want to send me mail, I do not give it nor do I invite strangers to approach it, and I especially dont like it when a friend of a friend gives out my address to strangers.
3. In general, opt-out features of social networks are by design an anti-feature meant to drive more engagement for them, and has little to no perceived benefit to me. (Yes you can say facebook does it, and that is why I dont have a facebook account)
Better?
Please, my email is firstname.lastname @ gmail. A lot of people do this. Email isn't private.
At worst, this is a mild G+ related annoyance...
At worst, this is a mild G+ related annoyance...
Man, I hate Google+ as much as the next person, and I was this close to defending them here. They almost did it right. Almost.
The problem is that it defaults to "Everyone on Google+" For those of you mystified that this is pissing people off, it's because not everyone on Google+ wanted a Google+ account precisely because Google is shoehorning it into everything! "Just opt out" misses the point; some of us don't want to have to dig around in settings for a service we didn't want to opt out of stuff like being put on a spammable directory for strangers.
If it defaulted to "Circles" I'd have a hard time complaining about it; people who don't want Google+ don't have Circles. But as it stands, this is "we're quietly opting you into spam." (and for those who say it won't happen, I've already gotten more YouTube spam since the G+ rollout than I have over the rest of the account's lifetime combined, and my YouTube account is old)
The problem is that it defaults to "Everyone on Google+" For those of you mystified that this is pissing people off, it's because not everyone on Google+ wanted a Google+ account precisely because Google is shoehorning it into everything! "Just opt out" misses the point; some of us don't want to have to dig around in settings for a service we didn't want to opt out of stuff like being put on a spammable directory for strangers.
If it defaulted to "Circles" I'd have a hard time complaining about it; people who don't want Google+ don't have Circles. But as it stands, this is "we're quietly opting you into spam." (and for those who say it won't happen, I've already gotten more YouTube spam since the G+ rollout than I have over the rest of the account's lifetime combined, and my YouTube account is old)
Isn't this the same as Twitter emailing you the contents of a DM everytime someone DMs you? Because the person sending the mail doesn't actually see your email address, only your username.
It's a little different, though not in practice. It's more a difference of semantics.
On Facebook / Twitter you are receiving a notification through their service, and then their service is emailing you about said notification (likely with the contents of the message).
With this it maps your email address to your public Google+ name, and auto-fills your name for anyone who wishes to contact you through Gmail, which appears as a regular email client. You receive the email as a normal email (as far as I'm aware, may be not the case).
I suspect a lot of the anger stems from this subtle distinction. With Facebook and Twitter, when you sign up for the account you also sign up for the relevant notifications. With this Gmail feature, many people did not sign up for their public G+ name to be mapped to their email address, your name auto-completing in other peoples' "To:" fields.
That said, I don't really have an issue with this feature because I don't have a G+ account, and if I did have a G+ account I'd probably find it pretty useful.
On Facebook / Twitter you are receiving a notification through their service, and then their service is emailing you about said notification (likely with the contents of the message).
With this it maps your email address to your public Google+ name, and auto-fills your name for anyone who wishes to contact you through Gmail, which appears as a regular email client. You receive the email as a normal email (as far as I'm aware, may be not the case).
I suspect a lot of the anger stems from this subtle distinction. With Facebook and Twitter, when you sign up for the account you also sign up for the relevant notifications. With this Gmail feature, many people did not sign up for their public G+ name to be mapped to their email address, your name auto-completing in other peoples' "To:" fields.
That said, I don't really have an issue with this feature because I don't have a G+ account, and if I did have a G+ account I'd probably find it pretty useful.
The difference is you have to be following the sender, otherwise they can't DM you. Though it's pretty silly and Twitter did remove the restriction recently, temporarily. They'll need to work on it if they want to make DMs more useful.
Anyway, I do actually think this is useful functionality. It can only be sent from another GMail user, so Google will quickly know if it's being abused.
Anyway, I do actually think this is useful functionality. It can only be sent from another GMail user, so Google will quickly know if it's being abused.
You can only DM someone who follows you. As described, people don't have to be in your circles, it's open to the world.
Agree that this should be opt-in only. Google may believe that people wouldn't use the feature if they had to go to the trouble of enabling it. BTW, it appears that this feature cannot be used to spam others. If you receive such an email and simply delete it, the sender will not be able to send you any more messages. That is, Google only lets senders continue to email you only if you respond to the first message.
Personally, I don't care. I can imagine scenarios though where someone has a huge following on social media but wants to keep their email private to a relatively small circle. This may be an edge case but nonetheless it probably exists.
Understood. Note that, apparently, if you DO respond to one of these messages, the original sender is actually provided with your email address. Here's the text of a message I just received from Google:
"How it works with email addresses
Emailing Google+ connections works a bit differently to protect the privacy of email addresses. Your email address isn't visible to your Google+ connections until you send them an email, and their email addresses are not visible to you until they respond. "
"How it works with email addresses
Emailing Google+ connections works a bit differently to protect the privacy of email addresses. Your email address isn't visible to your Google+ connections until you send them an email, and their email addresses are not visible to you until they respond. "
This is the type of thing that the X Labs projects are meant to distract from. Google is a company that has decided to flip the switch and monetize everything they possibly can, and are attempting to remain relevant and perceived as innovative in the eyes of its various stakeholders: employees, shareholders, tech press, the general public, regulators, etc. They are the new Microsoft, but they still want you to view them as the Google when it was first going public.
I totally get this. My gmail address is a treasure, and I treat it as such. I hand it out to people that I'm OK getting emails from. Everyone else gets a work email or a misc email that I check less often.
Beyond that, since Google uses emails for login, this essentially gives someone half of the equation to hack your account.
It also enables spammers to quickly collect legit emails for their spam lists.
Beyond that, since Google uses emails for login, this essentially gives someone half of the equation to hack your account.
It also enables spammers to quickly collect legit emails for their spam lists.
Wow, if your mailbox is like mine, you must hate "reply to all" with equal passion.
This feature doesn't reveal your email address unless you reply. And the message goes to the 'social' tab if you're using the tabbed inbox (it'll probably be easy to filter if you're not, but I have no idea)
I really doubt spammers are going to find these useful for harvesting.
I really doubt spammers are going to find these useful for harvesting.
You're right, just found this:
"Your email address isn't visible to your Google+ connections until you send them an email, and their email addresses are not visible to you until they respond."
Doesn't change my opinion on the 'feature,' but does make it less painful. I wonder if the backlash in this thread has more to do with people's distaste for Marco than it does with the issue at hand.
"Your email address isn't visible to your Google+ connections until you send them an email, and their email addresses are not visible to you until they respond."
Doesn't change my opinion on the 'feature,' but does make it less painful. I wonder if the backlash in this thread has more to do with people's distaste for Marco than it does with the issue at hand.
From what I've read, they don't see your email nor will. Not sure how this is half the equation to hack your account and also doesn't give spammers anything. Please be realistic.
I had assumed that after sending, they could view the 'sent' tab and see the address, opening up your username and your actual email. It seems this isn't the case, but that doesn't make it any less troubling.
How does this help anyone other than people that didn't have the email already?
How does this help anyone other than people that didn't have the email already?
A lot of fury over nothing. If someone is sufficiently bothered to even write a comment in this thread (let alone pen an original genuine article), they can opt-out - since the directions are laid out in the email I received about the news.
Just like we call some problems 'first world problem', I'd call this '15 second annoyance'. Ie the worst case scenario is that you have to spend 15 seconds fixing something - not the end of the world.
I am more bothered (and think there is a level of difference) between this and cases where Google does something you can't opt-out of (such as change Compose window in Gmail or shut down a service). Those are real issues.
Just like we call some problems 'first world problem', I'd call this '15 second annoyance'. Ie the worst case scenario is that you have to spend 15 seconds fixing something - not the end of the world.
I am more bothered (and think there is a level of difference) between this and cases where Google does something you can't opt-out of (such as change Compose window in Gmail or shut down a service). Those are real issues.
I find it funny that on the very same site where we see an endless supply of NSA privacy-invasion complaints, we also see an impressive defense in support of Google's efforts to the same.
Do ya'll hate Marco that much?
Do ya'll hate Marco that much?
"Emailing Google+ connections also takes advantage of Gmail's new inbox's categories."
This seems broken for me, I have to delete both unwanted emails from my inbox in addition to the category, even though I dont use the categories feature per se.
This seems broken for me, I have to delete both unwanted emails from my inbox in addition to the category, even though I dont use the categories feature per se.
Today is Christmas for the recruiting industry
Doesn't this require you to follow them first before they can message you? Also how is this different from someone reaching out to you on twitter that you don't follow?
To the first, it defaults to "anyone on Google+"
To the second, Google+ is unique among social networks in that large swaths of its userbase didn't voluntarily sign up for it.
To the second, Google+ is unique among social networks in that large swaths of its userbase didn't voluntarily sign up for it.
I'd be more worried, but Google has actively fought against spammers and abuse of their services in the past, and I doubt they've suddenly concluded that user experience doesn't matter.
It might be sensible to at least wait and see how bad the abuse gets before calling Google "sleazy" for opening the doors to massive abuse.
It might be sensible to at least wait and see how bad the abuse gets before calling Google "sleazy" for opening the doors to massive abuse.
This is a silly post (I'm using a less incendiary word than I'm thinking) and is already discussed here in other comments.
Google is clearly relying on their very good anti-spam software and ownership of the socialnetwork to keep your inbox clean from spam.
Google is clearly relying on their very good anti-spam software and ownership of the socialnetwork to keep your inbox clean from spam.
There is always the option to delete your G+ account, yet keep Gmail. http://www.wikihow.com/Delete-a-Google%2B-Account
I'm not sure there will be bad effects from this. If you know my first name you can find my GMail and Google Apps email addresses (and all my social media profiles, Amazon pages, etc.) Spam is still minimal.
Tip for those of you who want to limit/remove this feature, it's found in the main settings page (General tab) between "Conversation View" and "Send and Archive".
The whole Google+ integration is pathetic! I don't want to be able to "chat" to anyone following me from "Hangouts". The whole concept is a pile of dung!
[deleted]
I feel bad for John Smith.
This just makes communication with people you already have a sort-of relationship with easier. Seems like an all around good thing. If you really, really feel like only a whitelist of people should ever contact you then you can always go into the options and turn it off. But why would you?