Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gmail wants my DoB
2,483 views
Skip to first unread message
Algernon Goss-Custard
Mar 29, 2021, 11:59:12 AM3/29/21
to
Normally I collect my incoming email from Gmail by POP3, but
occasionally I use the webmail interface instead, because it allows me
to check if Gmail has spam-binned any genuine messages.
This morning, on trying to log in to webmail, I got a screen saying :
*****
Add your birthday.
[graphic - exclamation point in warning triangle] Your date of birth is
missing. This information is needed to comply with the law.
[data entry boxes]
This won't make your birthday public.
Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more.
You can change this information and manage how it's used at
accounts.google.com
****
It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these
days?
--
Algernon
occasionally I use the webmail interface instead, because it allows me
to check if Gmail has spam-binned any genuine messages.
This morning, on trying to log in to webmail, I got a screen saying :
*****
Add your birthday.
[graphic - exclamation point in warning triangle] Your date of birth is
missing. This information is needed to comply with the law.
[data entry boxes]
This won't make your birthday public.
Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more.
You can change this information and manage how it's used at
accounts.google.com
****
It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these
days?
--
Algernon
JNugent
Mar 29, 2021, 12:44:51 PM3/29/21
to
Or subtract.
Andy Burns
Mar 29, 2021, 12:45:07 PM3/29/21
to
Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
> boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these
> days?
There is nothing in the DoB fields on my accounts.google.com page, they
> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
> boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these
> days?
have never previously asked me for it when I sign in to gmail, and
didn't just now.
Max Demian
Mar 29, 2021, 12:45:41 PM3/29/21
to
to see what they do with it.)
--
Max Demian
Fredxx
Mar 29, 2021, 12:46:20 PM3/29/21
to
On 29/03/2021 16:10, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
enter a fake one, but make sure you remember it!
Martin Harran
Mar 29, 2021, 2:45:50 PM3/29/21
to
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:14:32 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
Just be careful; DOB is often used as a security question if you
forget your password or try to access your account from an unknown
device. If you really don't want to give your actual DOB - and I'm
struggling to find a good reason why not - then use something you will
easily remember e.g. your spouse's DOB, the DOB for your first or last
child, the date of your marriage or some other memorable date.
As to why they are insisting on it, probably to do with you declaring
you are over 18 and ok with "adult" content and advertising.
wrote:
forget your password or try to access your account from an unknown
device. If you really don't want to give your actual DOB - and I'm
struggling to find a good reason why not - then use something you will
easily remember e.g. your spouse's DOB, the DOB for your first or last
child, the date of your marriage or some other memorable date.
As to why they are insisting on it, probably to do with you declaring
you are over 18 and ok with "adult" content and advertising.
Vir Campestris
Mar 29, 2021, 6:06:20 PM3/29/21
to
On 29/03/2021 17:25, Fredxx wrote:
> For me this has been optional, perhaps things have changed? You can
> enter a fake one, but make sure you remember it!
One or two web sites think my current age is 121 years, 3 months and 28
> For me this has been optional, perhaps things have changed? You can
> enter a fake one, but make sure you remember it!
days. Because 1/1/1900 was the earliest I could put in.
I feel that by putting in clearly wrong data they can filter it out if
they are doing something interesting.
Andy
michael adams
Mar 29, 2021, 6:10:17 PM3/29/21
to
"Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:F5UXwSDO...@invalid.com...
and £500 trainers Google are probably confused about your age;
which they need to know in order to target you with the appropriate
ads. As that's all you are to them, advertising fodder.
What kind of information they're entitled to demand you provide
in order to continue using their services is probably buried
deep in their T&C's.
If you value their services then there's no real point in giving an
incorrect DOB as if this is discovered then they'll probably close
your account.
michael adams
posting via giganews
Algernon Goss-Custard
Mar 29, 2021, 6:11:03 PM3/29/21
to
Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> posted
You just wrote that DOB is often used as a security question if you
forget your password, and you're wondering why I don't want to give my
actual DOB to anybody who asks?
>then use something you will
>easily remember e.g. your spouse's DOB, the DOB for your first or last
>child, the date of your marriage or some other memorable date.
>
>As to why they are insisting on it, probably to do with you declaring
>you are over 18 and ok with "adult" content and advertising.
No, if you read my OP attentively you'll know that is not the case.
--
Algernon
forget your password, and you're wondering why I don't want to give my
actual DOB to anybody who asks?
>then use something you will
>easily remember e.g. your spouse's DOB, the DOB for your first or last
>child, the date of your marriage or some other memorable date.
>
>As to why they are insisting on it, probably to do with you declaring
>you are over 18 and ok with "adult" content and advertising.
--
Algernon
Max Demian
Mar 30, 2021, 6:11:28 AM3/30/21
to
On 30/03/2021 09:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
> Do me a favour.
>
> After someones name and sex, DOB is trivial to elicit or uncover. Using
> DOB for "security" is even worse than "mothers maiden name" (not that
> anyone should ever give the real answer to that anyway).
>
> It's the same "security" as Birmingham Councils security of sending me a
> letter with *both* parts of the security code on the same page. Anyone
> intercepting the letter has all they need to access the account.
It's a "magic number". In the US, people prove their identity by quoting
their social security number. You can buy stuff over the phone or online
with just your 16 digit CC number. So they added the requirement to add
the three extra digits on the back of the card: more numbers. We're told
not to give all and sundry our bank account number and sort code in case
people use it to draw money from our accounts (somehow).
--
Max Demian
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:43:14 +0100, Martin Harran wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:14:32 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> [quoted text muted]
>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:14:32 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just be careful; DOB is often used as a security question if you forget
>> your password or try to access your account from an unknown device.
>
> "Security" ?
>> Just be careful; DOB is often used as a security question if you forget
>> your password or try to access your account from an unknown device.
>
>
> Do me a favour.
>
> After someones name and sex, DOB is trivial to elicit or uncover. Using
> DOB for "security" is even worse than "mothers maiden name" (not that
> anyone should ever give the real answer to that anyway).
>
> It's the same "security" as Birmingham Councils security of sending me a
> letter with *both* parts of the security code on the same page. Anyone
> intercepting the letter has all they need to access the account.
It's a "magic number". In the US, people prove their identity by quoting
their social security number. You can buy stuff over the phone or online
with just your 16 digit CC number. So they added the requirement to add
the three extra digits on the back of the card: more numbers. We're told
not to give all and sundry our bank account number and sort code in case
people use it to draw money from our accounts (somehow).
--
Max Demian
Algernon Goss-Custard
Mar 30, 2021, 6:21:51 AM3/30/21
to
Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> posted
some dodgy website interposing itself between me and Gmail?
>they have never previously asked me for it when I sign in to gmail, and
>didn't just now.
Same here. I tried again later, and I didn't get that screen.
But people don't seem to have understood the point of my post. If this
really is Google asking, then they are lying when they say "Your date of
birth is missing. This information is needed to comply with the law". It
is *not* needed to comply with the law AFAIK. Or, at least, I know that
it was not needed previously, and relevant UK law hasn't changed in the
last week or two. Not since May 2018 in fact.
--
Algernon
>Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>
>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
>>boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing
>>these days?
>
>There is nothing in the DoB fields on my accounts.google.com page,
Quite. So is it really Google asking, or is it malware or something, or
>
>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
>>boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing
>>these days?
>
>There is nothing in the DoB fields on my accounts.google.com page,
some dodgy website interposing itself between me and Gmail?
>they have never previously asked me for it when I sign in to gmail, and
>didn't just now.
But people don't seem to have understood the point of my post. If this
really is Google asking, then they are lying when they say "Your date of
birth is missing. This information is needed to comply with the law". It
is *not* needed to comply with the law AFAIK. Or, at least, I know that
it was not needed previously, and relevant UK law hasn't changed in the
last week or two. Not since May 2018 in fact.
--
Algernon
tim...
Mar 30, 2021, 6:22:27 AM3/30/21
to
"JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:icecn6...@mid.individual.net...
on (what would have been this year) my 121st birthday
they seem to have stopped now
tim...
Mar 30, 2021, 6:22:40 AM3/30/21
to
"michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8cidnbVM6LrvtP_9...@brightview.co.uk...
what "will" happen, is that if you forget your password you will struggle to
remember the security details that you need to restore it
Lady upstairs from me BTDTGTTS
Max Demian
Mar 30, 2021, 6:22:53 AM3/30/21
to
On 29/03/2021 16:10, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
I wonder what will happen if we ignore. Social media and tech companies
are reluctant to exclude you; generally allowing you to skip these
requests (if you can find the option).
I note that they talk about "birthday" in the initial request. Surely
all English speaking people use the term to mean the anniversary?
--
Max Demian
Max Demian
Mar 30, 2021, 6:23:30 AM3/30/21
to
On 29/03/2021 20:24, michael adams wrote:
> "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:F5UXwSDO...@invalid.com...
>> Normally I collect my incoming email from Gmail by POP3, but occasionally I use the
>> webmail interface instead, because it allows me to check if Gmail has spam-binned any
>> genuine messages.
>>
>> This morning, on trying to log in to webmail, I got a screen saying :
>>
>> *****
>> Add your birthday.
>>
>> [graphic - exclamation point in warning triangle] Your date of birth is missing. This
>> information is needed to comply with the law.
>>
>> [data entry boxes]
>>
>> This won't make your birthday public.
>>
>> Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to make the ads you
>> see more relevant to you. Learn more.
>>
>> You can change this information and manage how it's used at accounts.google.com
>>
>> ****
>>
>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the boxes. A scam? Or
>> was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these days?
>>
>
> If you've been clicking on Google links for both mobility aids
> and Ł500 trainers Google are probably confused about your age;
> "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:F5UXwSDO...@invalid.com...
>> Normally I collect my incoming email from Gmail by POP3, but occasionally I use the
>> webmail interface instead, because it allows me to check if Gmail has spam-binned any
>> genuine messages.
>>
>> This morning, on trying to log in to webmail, I got a screen saying :
>>
>> *****
>> Add your birthday.
>>
>> [graphic - exclamation point in warning triangle] Your date of birth is missing. This
>> information is needed to comply with the law.
>>
>> [data entry boxes]
>>
>> This won't make your birthday public.
>>
>> Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to make the ads you
>> see more relevant to you. Learn more.
>>
>> You can change this information and manage how it's used at accounts.google.com
>>
>> ****
>>
>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the boxes. A scam? Or
>> was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these days?
>>
>
> If you've been clicking on Google links for both mobility aids
> which they need to know in order to target you with the appropriate
> ads. As that's all you are to them, advertising fodder.
>
> What kind of information they're entitled to demand you provide
> in order to continue using their services is probably buried
> deep in their T&C's.
That's not needed "to comply with the law".
> ads. As that's all you are to them, advertising fodder.
>
> What kind of information they're entitled to demand you provide
> in order to continue using their services is probably buried
> deep in their T&C's.
> If you value their services then there's no real point in giving an
> incorrect DOB as if this is discovered then they'll probably close
> your account.
determine your actual DOB. Tech companies are always asking for stuff
like your mobile number for 2FA; Google Play want your CC details but,
if you are only installing free apps, you can skip the requirement.
--
Max Demian
Jonathan Ward
Mar 30, 2021, 6:45:56 AM3/30/21
to
Jonathan
tim...
Mar 30, 2021, 7:18:13 AM3/30/21
to
"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:s3utok$8g4$2...@dont-email.me...
> led to an interesting encounter at a tool hire shop (local, not chain)
> where the guy "needed" my CV2 to be able to "process my payment".
>
> Of course in reality he was putting payments through a CNP portal to
> avoid card fees (and my protection).
how does it circumvent your protection?
Roland Perry
Mar 30, 2021, 7:45:36 AM3/30/21
to
In message <s3v1db$o87$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:18:03 on Tue, 30 Mar
2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
The most obvious is "not storing the CV2" which I suspect many such
places do on a scrap of paper if not inside their approved/tested CNP
app.
--
Roland Perry
2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
places do on a scrap of paper if not inside their approved/tested CNP
app.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
Mar 30, 2021, 8:53:56 AM3/30/21
to
news:s3v4ce$8g4$3...@dont-email.me...
> Because had anything gone wrong, the truth of the matter was that I had
> contravened the cards T&Cs by allowing it to be used for a CNP
> transaction when I was most definitely present.
I don't think that it could be proved that you "allowed" it
it's trivially easy for a retailer to enter the number without your
knowledge
so I doubt that the card company would even query this if you had a problem
In any case
is there actually a term forbidding you from doing it?
> contravened the cards T&Cs by allowing it to be used for a CNP
> transaction when I was most definitely present.
I don't think that it could be proved that you "allowed" it
it's trivially easy for a retailer to enter the number without your
knowledge
so I doubt that the card company would even query this if you had a problem
In any case
is there actually a term forbidding you from doing it?
tim...
Mar 30, 2021, 8:57:58 AM3/30/21
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x2q18zvk...@perry.uk...
so. and can thus use it for future transactions
in what way does that that act alone compromise the protection of the
consumer?
Card rules require CNP transactions to be "delivered" to the customer's
registered address for the retailer to be protected.
if he doesn't do that the risk stay with him and doesn't transfer to the
card holder.
All the card holder has to say is "the item wasn't delivered to my
registered address"
michael adams
Mar 30, 2021, 9:29:33 AM3/30/21
to
"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:P_2dnaPUIfMUZ__9...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 29/03/2021 20:24, michael adams wrote:
>> "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:F5UXwSDO...@invalid.com...
>>> Normally I collect my incoming email from Gmail by POP3, but occasionally I use the
>>> webmail interface instead, because it allows me to check if Gmail has spam-binned any
>>> genuine messages.
>>>
>>> This morning, on trying to log in to webmail, I got a screen saying :
>>>
>>> *****
>>> Add your birthday.
>>>
>>> [graphic - exclamation point in warning triangle] Your date of birth is missing.
>>> This
>>> information is needed to comply with the law.
>>>
>>> [data entry boxes]
>>>
>>> This won't make your birthday public.
>>>
>>> Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to make the ads you
>>> see more relevant to you. Learn more.
>>>
>>> You can change this information and manage how it's used at accounts.google.com
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the boxes. A scam? Or
>>> was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these days?
>>>
>>
>> If you've been clicking on Google links for both mobility aids
>> and L500 trainers Google are probably confused about your age;
>> "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:F5UXwSDO...@invalid.com...
>>> Normally I collect my incoming email from Gmail by POP3, but occasionally I use the
>>> webmail interface instead, because it allows me to check if Gmail has spam-binned any
>>> genuine messages.
>>>
>>> This morning, on trying to log in to webmail, I got a screen saying :
>>>
>>> *****
>>> Add your birthday.
>>>
>>> [graphic - exclamation point in warning triangle] Your date of birth is missing.
>>> This
>>> information is needed to comply with the law.
>>>
>>> [data entry boxes]
>>>
>>> This won't make your birthday public.
>>>
>>> Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to make the ads you
>>> see more relevant to you. Learn more.
>>>
>>> You can change this information and manage how it's used at accounts.google.com
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the boxes. A scam? Or
>>> was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these days?
>>>
>>
>> If you've been clicking on Google links for both mobility aids
>> which they need to know in order to target you with the appropriate
>> ads. As that's all you are to them, advertising fodder.
>>
>> What kind of information they're entitled to demand you provide
>> in order to continue using their services is probably buried
>> deep in their T&C's.
>
> That's not needed "to comply with the law".
That might depend on what sites the user could access directly via Google.
>> ads. As that's all you are to them, advertising fodder.
>>
>> What kind of information they're entitled to demand you provide
>> in order to continue using their services is probably buried
>> deep in their T&C's.
>
> That's not needed "to comply with the law".
There are any number of websites which in various juristictions impose age restrictions,
- gambling, liquor, porn, guns, and possibly in some circumstances Google might be
regarded as a first line of defence.
In which case Google can interpret "the law" in a way which best suits themselves.
>
>> If you value their services then there's no real point in giving an
>> incorrect DOB as if this is discovered then they'll probably close
>> your account.
>
> No they won't as they want your business,
As a Google user *you* are the product. Your *only* value is in providing Google
with accurate information about yourself - either directly or indirectly say through
your search history, which can be provided to advertisers allowing them
to target their adverisements to their most likely customers. That's their
business model in which they're in direct competition with the likes of
If Google allowed account holders to provide contradictory information about themslves
possibly across various platforms - basically to lie - something which it would be
realtivley
easy for advertisers to discover for themselves - then Google's value to advertisers
would
thereby be diminished and they'd be providing sevices to freeloaders.
> and there's no way they can determine your actual DOB.
of information where targetted advertising is concerned. As I said previously they
may get an idea of your gerneral age group just by analysing your search history -
or there again, possibly not.
> Tech companies are always asking for stuff like your mobile number for 2FA; Google Play
> want your CC details but, if you are only installing free apps, you can skip the
> requirement.
surprising
the number of people who apparently still think there is.
michael adams
posting through giganews
>
> --
> Max Demian
AnthonyL
Mar 30, 2021, 9:30:14 AM3/30/21
to
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:43:14 +0100, Martin Harran
their business.
A friend of mine has died and I'm trying to sift through the iPad for
anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
They are all getting too big for their boots and locking people in.
One day everyone will have to pay a ransom to these mega-corporations
or else. Thank god for usenet.
--
AnthonyL
Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?
tim...
Mar 30, 2021, 11:52:21 AM3/30/21
to
"AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:606312b9...@news.eternal-september.org...
realistically, what are they going to do?
Roland Perry
Mar 30, 2021, 12:06:39 PM3/30/21
to
In message <s3vcme$c47$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:30:37 on Tue, 30 Mar
2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> A friend of mine has died and I'm trying to sift through the iPad for
>> anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
>> understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
>
>so you just stop paying, for whatever it is.
The banks will freeze the cards as soon as they are informed, so you
don't have to worry about all the individual merchants.
>realistically, what are they going to do?
If it's something like domain hosting, they can cancel the registration,
which might itself be an asset, let alone the material hosted there.
--
Roland Perry
2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> A friend of mine has died and I'm trying to sift through the iPad for
>> anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
>> understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
>
>so you just stop paying, for whatever it is.
don't have to worry about all the individual merchants.
>realistically, what are they going to do?
which might itself be an asset, let alone the material hosted there.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mar 30, 2021, 12:06:43 PM3/30/21
to
In message <s3v785$3on$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:57:40 on Tue, 30 Mar
How does that work for CNP transactions like software downloads?
>if he doesn't do that the risk stay with him and doesn't transfer to
>the card holder.
>
>All the card holder has to say is "the item wasn't delivered to my
>registered address"
I really isn't as simple as that.
--
Roland Perry
>if he doesn't do that the risk stay with him and doesn't transfer to
>the card holder.
>
>All the card holder has to say is "the item wasn't delivered to my
>registered address"
--
Roland Perry
Algernon Goss-Custard
Mar 30, 2021, 5:00:18 PM3/30/21
to
michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> posted
ordinary Google search. Which they don't, so it can't be that.
What we're talking about is Gmail, which has got nothing to do with
accessing websites, other than the Gmail webmail interface.
--
Algernon
>
>"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:P_2dnaPUIfMUZ__9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:P_2dnaPUIfMUZ__9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>> That's not needed "to comply with the law".
>
>That might depend on what sites the user could access directly via Google.
>There are any number of websites which in various juristictions impose
>age restrictions,
>- gambling, liquor, porn, guns, and possibly in some circumstances
>Google might be
>regarded as a first line of defence.
If that were the issue, they would ask everyone their age when you do an
>
>That might depend on what sites the user could access directly via Google.
>There are any number of websites which in various juristictions impose
>age restrictions,
>- gambling, liquor, porn, guns, and possibly in some circumstances
>Google might be
>regarded as a first line of defence.
ordinary Google search. Which they don't, so it can't be that.
What we're talking about is Gmail, which has got nothing to do with
accessing websites, other than the Gmail webmail interface.
--
Algernon
michael adams
Mar 30, 2021, 5:01:10 PM3/30/21
to
"tim..." <timsn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:s3vcme$c47$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
> news:606312b9...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>
> "AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
> news:606312b9...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> A friend of mine has died and I'm trying to sift through the iPad for
>> anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
>> understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
>
> so you just stop paying, for whatever it is.
>
> realistically, what are they going to do?
Send threatening letters to the OP's deceased friend at their
>> anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
>> understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
>
> so you just stop paying, for whatever it is.
>
> realistically, what are they going to do?
last known address ? To be then opened by the aged widower
and possibly be the cause of unwarrented and unwelcome
distress ?
But apart from that, as you say....
Algernon Goss-Custard
Mar 30, 2021, 5:07:54 PM3/30/21
to
Fredxx <fre...@nospam.co.uk> posted
In what sense? Did it ever ask you to supply your DoB when you tries to
log into webmail? If so, was there a way round it?
>perhaps things have changed? You can enter a fake one, but make sure
>you remember it!
I know what I can do. What I'm asking is whether Google is infringing
the law - in particular the GDPR.
--
Algernon
log into webmail? If so, was there a way round it?
>perhaps things have changed? You can enter a fake one, but make sure
>you remember it!
the law - in particular the GDPR.
--
Algernon
Roger Hayter
Mar 30, 2021, 6:07:36 PM3/30/21
to
discouraged. I am not sure how strongly.
--
Roger Hayter
michael adams
Mar 31, 2021, 4:46:42 AM3/31/21
to
news:fz5xiZK4$2Yg...@invalid.com...
open an account before using Google. As competing search engines don't do
this, Google can rightly argue that this would put them at a competeive
disadvantage.
Whereas what Google *may* argue is that Google account holders, whose
search history indicates that they may have an interest in say gambling,
porn, liquor, or guns say may well be asked to provide their date of
birth.
I actually thought this may have been the purpose of your post. The joke
being against yourself, as providing unwitting evidence of shall we say
the dubious nature of some aspects of your search history.
>
> What we're talking about is Gmail, which has got nothing to do with accessing websites,
> other than the Gmail webmail interface.
All Google products are fully integrated insofar as gathering information
about account holders is concerned. Which is their main purpose. There's
nothing particularly "creepy" about this - its just a very simple and effective
way categorising people - including you yourself - for advertising purposes.
So as to try and sell you rubbish specifically designed for your own
particular age group and interests.
Basically that's all you are to them, just a few bytes of data.
michael adams
....
> michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> posted
>>
>>"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:P_2dnaPUIfMUZ__9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> That's not needed "to comply with the law".
>>
>>That might depend on what sites the user could access directly via Google.
>>There are any number of websites which in various juristictions impose age
>>restrictions,
>>- gambling, liquor, porn, guns, and possibly in some circumstances Google might be
>>regarded as a first line of defence.
>
> If that were the issue, they would ask everyone their age when you do an ordinary
> Google search. Which they don't, so it can't be that.
But that would be *practically* impossible without requiring everyone to
>>
>>"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:P_2dnaPUIfMUZ__9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> That's not needed "to comply with the law".
>>
>>That might depend on what sites the user could access directly via Google.
>>There are any number of websites which in various juristictions impose age
>>restrictions,
>>- gambling, liquor, porn, guns, and possibly in some circumstances Google might be
>>regarded as a first line of defence.
>
> If that were the issue, they would ask everyone their age when you do an ordinary
> Google search. Which they don't, so it can't be that.
open an account before using Google. As competing search engines don't do
this, Google can rightly argue that this would put them at a competeive
disadvantage.
Whereas what Google *may* argue is that Google account holders, whose
search history indicates that they may have an interest in say gambling,
porn, liquor, or guns say may well be asked to provide their date of
birth.
I actually thought this may have been the purpose of your post. The joke
being against yourself, as providing unwitting evidence of shall we say
the dubious nature of some aspects of your search history.
>
> What we're talking about is Gmail, which has got nothing to do with accessing websites,
> other than the Gmail webmail interface.
about account holders is concerned. Which is their main purpose. There's
nothing particularly "creepy" about this - its just a very simple and effective
way categorising people - including you yourself - for advertising purposes.
So as to try and sell you rubbish specifically designed for your own
particular age group and interests.
Basically that's all you are to them, just a few bytes of data.
michael adams
....
tim...
Mar 31, 2021, 6:02:35 AM3/31/21
to
news:ekVeIw0Z...@perry.uk...
I don't recognise AmazonPrime and Apple as providers of domain hosting
tim...
Mar 31, 2021, 6:06:53 AM3/31/21
to
news:Aqudne0BGb-K-P79...@brightview.co.uk...
finalising someone's estate
Letters don't just need to be threatening to be distressful
some people get distressed when receiving a letter addressed
Mr J Smith (deceased)
Dear Mr Deceased...
That's life
>
> "tim..." <timsn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s3vcme$c47$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> "AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:606312b9...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> A friend of mine has died and I'm trying to sift through the iPad for
>>> anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
>>> understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
>>
>> so you just stop paying, for whatever it is.
>>
>> realistically, what are they going to do?
>
> Send threatening letters to the OP's deceased friend at their
> last known address ? To be then opened by the aged widower
> and possibly be the cause of unwarrented and unwelcome
> distress ?
but that's just something that you have to accept when taking on the task of
> "tim..." <timsn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s3vcme$c47$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> "AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:606312b9...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> A friend of mine has died and I'm trying to sift through the iPad for
>>> anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
>>> understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
>>
>> so you just stop paying, for whatever it is.
>>
>> realistically, what are they going to do?
>
> Send threatening letters to the OP's deceased friend at their
> last known address ? To be then opened by the aged widower
> and possibly be the cause of unwarrented and unwelcome
> distress ?
finalising someone's estate
Letters don't just need to be threatening to be distressful
some people get distressed when receiving a letter addressed
Mr J Smith (deceased)
Dear Mr Deceased...
That's life
tim...
Mar 31, 2021, 6:14:22 AM3/31/21
to
news:RUldEA0a...@perry.uk...
Dunno,
presumably the risk still sits with the supplier
It's not like they are supplying anything of tangible value
and if the virtual value of the item is significant, then they need to put
in software lock so the they can turn off copies that are later queried by
the payee (with suitable T&C to cover that)
Obviously it isn't going to be possible to stop someone from stealing an
eBook this way. But the incentive not to be blocked from the next purchase
is enough for most punters not to try it on
>>if he doesn't do that the risk stay with him and doesn't transfer to the
>>card holder.
>>
>>All the card holder has to say is "the item wasn't delivered to my
>>registered address"
>
> I really isn't as simple as that.
from the customer's POV, it really is. (assuming that the claim they didn't
receive the item is true, of course)
presumably the risk still sits with the supplier
It's not like they are supplying anything of tangible value
and if the virtual value of the item is significant, then they need to put
in software lock so the they can turn off copies that are later queried by
the payee (with suitable T&C to cover that)
Obviously it isn't going to be possible to stop someone from stealing an
eBook this way. But the incentive not to be blocked from the next purchase
is enough for most punters not to try it on
>>if he doesn't do that the risk stay with him and doesn't transfer to the
>>card holder.
>>
>>All the card holder has to say is "the item wasn't delivered to my
>>registered address"
>
> I really isn't as simple as that.
receive the item is true, of course)
tim...
Mar 31, 2021, 6:21:44 AM3/31/21
to
"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:ichlop...@mid.individual.net...
and there is nothing in there requiring that you "perform" the way that you
supply the card details to a retailer in any specified form, other than "do
not reveal your PIN to anybody"
tim...
Mar 31, 2021, 6:38:30 AM3/31/21
to
news:bjxwmDKZ...@invalid.com...
It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected to be
"necessary"
Not holding my breath whilst you look for someone's help in suing them on
this basis
"necessary"
Not holding my breath whilst you look for someone's help in suing them on
this basis
Roland Perry
Mar 31, 2021, 6:44:29 AM3/31/21
to
In message <s41hbe$ml8$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:02:20 on Wed, 31 Mar
(Actually, I know people with substantial photo libraries hosted on
Apple iCloud).
--
Roland Perry
2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>
>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ekVeIw0Z...@perry.uk...
>> In message <s3vcme$c47$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:30:37 on Tue, 30 Mar
>>2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> A friend of mine has died and I'm trying to sift through the iPad for
>>>> anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
>>>> understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
>>>
>>>so you just stop paying, for whatever it is.
>>
>> The banks will freeze the cards as soon as they are informed, so you
>>don't have to worry about all the individual merchants.
>>
>>>realistically, what are they going to do?
>>
>> If it's something like domain hosting, they can cancel the
>>registration, which might itself be an asset, let alone the material
>>hosted there.
>
>I don't recognise AmazonPrime and Apple as providers of domain hosting
They are also not the only online facilities people pay for.
>
>
>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ekVeIw0Z...@perry.uk...
>> In message <s3vcme$c47$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:30:37 on Tue, 30 Mar
>>2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> A friend of mine has died and I'm trying to sift through the iPad for
>>>> anything important for the aged widower. Amazon Prime, and I
>>>> understand Apple want Death Certificates to close the accounts.
>>>
>>>so you just stop paying, for whatever it is.
>>
>> The banks will freeze the cards as soon as they are informed, so you
>>don't have to worry about all the individual merchants.
>>
>>>realistically, what are they going to do?
>>
>> If it's something like domain hosting, they can cancel the
>>registration, which might itself be an asset, let alone the material
>>hosted there.
>
>I don't recognise AmazonPrime and Apple as providers of domain hosting
(Actually, I know people with substantial photo libraries hosted on
Apple iCloud).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mar 31, 2021, 6:54:34 AM3/31/21
to
In message <s41ife$v8j$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:21:32 on Wed, 31 Mar
2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>I have just checked the T&Cs of my card
>
>and there is nothing in there requiring that you "perform" the way
>that you supply the card details to a retailer in any specified form,
>other than "do not reveal your PIN to anybody"
I'm surprised there's nothing about dictating your CVV to people.
Of course, people do reveal their PIN to (inter alia) every ATM provider
they encounter, so trying to get them to keep it a total secret is as
futile as the current trend where they SMS you a code for CNP payment
with the instruction "never tell ANYONE [their emphasis] this code, not
even us", when the **entire point** of the dialogue is for you to TELL
IT TO THEM, in order for them to authenticate the transaction
!! argh !!! argh !!
--
Roland Perry
2021, tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>I have just checked the T&Cs of my card
>
>and there is nothing in there requiring that you "perform" the way
>that you supply the card details to a retailer in any specified form,
>other than "do not reveal your PIN to anybody"
Of course, people do reveal their PIN to (inter alia) every ATM provider
they encounter, so trying to get them to keep it a total secret is as
futile as the current trend where they SMS you a code for CNP payment
with the instruction "never tell ANYONE [their emphasis] this code, not
even us", when the **entire point** of the dialogue is for you to TELL
IT TO THEM, in order for them to authenticate the transaction
!! argh !!! argh !!
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mar 31, 2021, 7:04:32 AM3/31/21
to
In message <s41iis$fq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:22 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021,
tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> In what sense? Did it ever ask you to supply your DoB when you tries
>>to log into webmail? If so, was there a way round it?
>>
>>>perhaps things have changed? You can enter a fake one, but make sure
>>>you remember it!
>>
>> I know what I can do. What I'm asking is whether Google is infringing
>>the law - in particular the GDPR.
>
>It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected to
>be "necessary"
It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
and you may not collect more information than you need.
>Not holding my breath whilst you look for someone's help in suing them
>on this basis
I've never been able to engage anyone's enthusiasm to the idea that
collecting full DoB is excessive when the purpose is to ask if they are
over some specific age.
--
Roland Perry
tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> In what sense? Did it ever ask you to supply your DoB when you tries
>>to log into webmail? If so, was there a way round it?
>>
>>>perhaps things have changed? You can enter a fake one, but make sure
>>>you remember it!
>>
>> I know what I can do. What I'm asking is whether Google is infringing
>>the law - in particular the GDPR.
>
>It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected to
>be "necessary"
Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
and you may not collect more information than you need.
>Not holding my breath whilst you look for someone's help in suing them
>on this basis
collecting full DoB is excessive when the purpose is to ask if they are
over some specific age.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
Mar 31, 2021, 8:04:24 AM3/31/21
to
news:PZAKXJGJ...@perry.uk...
but just what is the need to be over a specific age for ownership of an
email account?
email account?
Roland Perry
Mar 31, 2021, 8:51:39 AM3/31/21
to
In message <s41ofr$bis$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:04:09 on Wed, 31 Mar
First you have to convince me that ownership of the email account
has other obligations (on both parties) than merely being a minor
disallowing you to agree their T&C.
--
Roland Perry
has other obligations (on both parties) than merely being a minor
disallowing you to agree their T&C.
--
Roland Perry
michael adams
Mar 31, 2021, 1:15:27 PM3/31/21
to
> In message <s41iis$fq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:22 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021, tim...
> <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
> <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected to be "necessary"
>
> It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
>
> Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
>
> You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
> information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
> and you may not collect more information than you need.
The email sent to the OP contains the following short explanation:
>
> It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
>
> Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
>
> You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
> information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
> and you may not collect more information than you need.
" Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
First - In this instance, among other uses, might not the specified purpose
of asking somewone's DOB, be so as to make the ads they see more relevant
to them, as claimed ?
To which the answer is surely "yes".
Second - would obtaining their DOB in this way actually help achieve that
objective ?
To which the answer is again surely "yes"
Thirdly - the question which it appears, is *not* actually covered by the
quoted regulation. Namely is this a legitimate (as against a financially
imperative) purpose, for which such information may be gathered ?
There are clothing firms which cater specifically for outsize customers
- ISTR there used to be retail shops in London devoted to Tall Men.
- with chrome lettering to that effect on the shop front.
When targetting such potential customers it would clearly be their
interests to know people's inside leg measurements, which Google
could possibly help with.
It seems to me that there's very little information about individuals
which potentially might not be of use to advertisers in order to
make their ads "more relevant to those individuals".
20 years ago it might have been argued that this is a subversion
of all sorts of basic principles, with various people had they
been dead at the time turning in their graves etc etc. but haven't
things moved on a bit since then ?
michael adams
....
notya...@gmail.com
Mar 31, 2021, 1:17:04 PM3/31/21
to
On Monday, 29 March 2021 at 23:06:20 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 29/03/2021 17:25, Fredxx wrote:
> > For me this has been optional, perhaps things have changed? You can
> days. Because 1/1/1900 was the earliest I could put in.
>
> I feel that by putting in clearly wrong data they can filter it out if
> they are doing something interesting.
>
> Andy
Yes I have tried 29/2/19xx where xx is odd, but most sites reject this :-(
> On 29/03/2021 17:25, Fredxx wrote:
> > For me this has been optional, perhaps things have changed? You can
> > enter a fake one, but make sure you remember it!
> One or two web sites think my current age is 121 years, 3 months and 28
> days. Because 1/1/1900 was the earliest I could put in.
>
> I feel that by putting in clearly wrong data they can filter it out if
> they are doing something interesting.
>
> Andy
Yes I have tried 29/2/19xx where xx is odd, but most sites reject this :-(
Algernon Goss-Custard
Mar 31, 2021, 2:52:32 PM3/31/21
to
michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> posted
irrelevant that Google is put at a competitive disadvantage by other
search engines not doing it. It's still the law. I mean, if I drive a
taxi and jump a red light, it's no good my telling the court that all
other taxi drivers jump red lights and I'm at a competitive disadvantage
if I don't.
If it really is the law, then the only legal solution is for *all*
search engines to be required to ask for DoBs. But as you rightly point
out, they don't, and nobody has ever suggested that they have to. The
inference is very clear.
>Whereas what Google *may* argue is that Google account holders, whose
>search history indicates
I do not use my Gmail account when doing Google searches (I wouldn't
know how). I search as an anonymous user. Google can probably match the
IP address used for the searches to the IP I use to collect mail from my
Gmail account, but that doesn't narrow the searches to me personally.
>that they may have an interest in say gambling,
>porn, liquor, or guns say may well be asked to provide their date of
>birth.
>
>I actually thought this may have been the purpose of your post. The joke
>being against yourself, as providing unwitting evidence of shall we say
>the dubious nature of some aspects of your search history.
It seems my original post failed in its object of explaining what had
happened in words that were clear to the very meanest of intelligences.
--
Algernon
>
>"Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:fz5xiZK4$2Yg...@invalid.com...
>> michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> posted
>>>
>>>"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>>news:P_2dnaPUIfMUZ__9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> That's not needed "to comply with the law".
>>>
>>>That might depend on what sites the user could access directly via Google.
>>>There are any number of websites which in various juristictions impose age
>>>restrictions,
>>>- gambling, liquor, porn, guns, and possibly in some circumstances
>>>Google might be
>>>regarded as a first line of defence.
>>
>> If that were the issue, they would ask everyone their age when you do
>>an ordinary
>> Google search. Which they don't, so it can't be that.
>
>But that would be *practically* impossible without requiring everyone to
>open an account before using Google. As competing search engines don't do
>this, Google can rightly argue that this would put them at a competeive
>disadvantage.
But if it's the *law* to do it, as Google says it is, then it is
>"Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:fz5xiZK4$2Yg...@invalid.com...
>> michael adams <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> posted
>>>
>>>"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>>news:P_2dnaPUIfMUZ__9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> That's not needed "to comply with the law".
>>>
>>>That might depend on what sites the user could access directly via Google.
>>>There are any number of websites which in various juristictions impose age
>>>restrictions,
>>>- gambling, liquor, porn, guns, and possibly in some circumstances
>>>Google might be
>>>regarded as a first line of defence.
>>
>> If that were the issue, they would ask everyone their age when you do
>>an ordinary
>> Google search. Which they don't, so it can't be that.
>
>But that would be *practically* impossible without requiring everyone to
>open an account before using Google. As competing search engines don't do
>this, Google can rightly argue that this would put them at a competeive
>disadvantage.
irrelevant that Google is put at a competitive disadvantage by other
search engines not doing it. It's still the law. I mean, if I drive a
taxi and jump a red light, it's no good my telling the court that all
other taxi drivers jump red lights and I'm at a competitive disadvantage
if I don't.
If it really is the law, then the only legal solution is for *all*
search engines to be required to ask for DoBs. But as you rightly point
out, they don't, and nobody has ever suggested that they have to. The
inference is very clear.
>Whereas what Google *may* argue is that Google account holders, whose
>search history indicates
know how). I search as an anonymous user. Google can probably match the
IP address used for the searches to the IP I use to collect mail from my
Gmail account, but that doesn't narrow the searches to me personally.
>that they may have an interest in say gambling,
>porn, liquor, or guns say may well be asked to provide their date of
>birth.
>
>I actually thought this may have been the purpose of your post. The joke
>being against yourself, as providing unwitting evidence of shall we say
>the dubious nature of some aspects of your search history.
happened in words that were clear to the very meanest of intelligences.
--
Algernon
michael adams
Mar 31, 2021, 3:16:24 PM3/31/21
to
news:xsVKlGDO...@invalid.com...
>
> It seems my original post failed in its object of explaining what had happened in words
> that were clear to the very meanest of intelligences.
What happened, as you explained, is that your received an email containing
among other things, the following phrase
" Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
make the ads you see more relevant to you."
No further explanation on your part was necessary, in order to explain,
whether or not "in words that were clear to the very meanest of
intelligences", exactly what that phrase meant.
The only person seemingly, who has yet to acknowledge that knowing
your DOB might well enable Google to better fulfil their stated objective
namely - as quoted from email above, of making "the ads you see more
relevant", is you yourself.
michael adams
....
>
> It seems my original post failed in its object of explaining what had happened in words
> that were clear to the very meanest of intelligences.
among other things, the following phrase
" Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
make the ads you see more relevant to you."
whether or not "in words that were clear to the very meanest of
intelligences", exactly what that phrase meant.
The only person seemingly, who has yet to acknowledge that knowing
your DOB might well enable Google to better fulfil their stated objective
namely - as quoted from email above, of making "the ads you see more
relevant", is you yourself.
michael adams
....
Max Demian
Mar 31, 2021, 4:46:43 PM3/31/21
to
care if advertisement are relevant to me. If having supplied my DOB and
inside leg measurement, I am still plagued with irrelevant adverts, what
recourse do I have?
--
Max Demian
michael adams
Mar 31, 2021, 6:23:27 PM3/31/21
to
news:u4adnRPVipU5Qvn9...@brightview.co.uk...
As I pointed out elsewhere that's not *necessarily* true in all possible
circumstances and under all juristictions.
And irrespective of that, Google can be seen to be acting responsibly
if say, by so doing they're deterring young children from being exploited
via Gmail.
The fact that some adults may choose to feel outraged by such requests
is unfortunate, but that's about it.
> and I might not care if advertisement are relevant to me. If having supplied my DOB and
> inside leg measurement, I am still plagued with irrelevant adverts, what recourse do I
> have?
That's very simple, stop using those services.
Surely there cannot be anybody who is so naive as to believe that Google, Facebook
Twitter, etc are providing all these services out of the goodness of their hearts ?
Their only interest is to either to sell you things themselves or enable others to sell
you things. The fact that they need to spend billions on servers in order to provide
free search engines, mail services or social forums which will attract the necessary
millions if not billions of users, is simply an incidental business cost, All they're
really
interested in is selling people stuff. As like it or not, in a materialist culture,
that's all that
really matters. There's even a recent trend in historical analysis suggesting that trade
is
the true basis of all human civilisations. All the rest, art,culture etc are just the
icing on the cake.
Unfortunately no matter how well targetted, not all advertsing is effective for any
number of reasons. But in a consumer society where nobody wants to pay
for search engines, mail services, or social forums that's simply a cross
we all have to bear, I'm afraid.
michael adams
....
> --
> Max Demian
circumstances and under all juristictions.
And irrespective of that, Google can be seen to be acting responsibly
if say, by so doing they're deterring young children from being exploited
via Gmail.
The fact that some adults may choose to feel outraged by such requests
is unfortunate, but that's about it.
> and I might not care if advertisement are relevant to me. If having supplied my DOB and
> inside leg measurement, I am still plagued with irrelevant adverts, what recourse do I
> have?
Surely there cannot be anybody who is so naive as to believe that Google, Facebook
Twitter, etc are providing all these services out of the goodness of their hearts ?
Their only interest is to either to sell you things themselves or enable others to sell
you things. The fact that they need to spend billions on servers in order to provide
free search engines, mail services or social forums which will attract the necessary
millions if not billions of users, is simply an incidental business cost, All they're
really
interested in is selling people stuff. As like it or not, in a materialist culture,
that's all that
really matters. There's even a recent trend in historical analysis suggesting that trade
is
the true basis of all human civilisations. All the rest, art,culture etc are just the
icing on the cake.
Unfortunately no matter how well targetted, not all advertsing is effective for any
number of reasons. But in a consumer society where nobody wants to pay
for search engines, mail services, or social forums that's simply a cross
we all have to bear, I'm afraid.
michael adams
....
> --
> Max Demian
Sara Merriman
Mar 31, 2021, 10:53:04 PM3/31/21
to
On 31 Mar 2021 at 20:14:00 BST, ""michael adams"" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
I thought the op wanted to discuss whether they had to ask for a DOB to
"comply with the law" which is what they claimed.
--
Spike is a sturdy birdy
wrote:
"comply with the law" which is what they claimed.
--
Spike is a sturdy birdy
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 3:08:13 AM4/1/21
to
news:H5EIfYIb...@perry.uk...
As I am not the one here arguing that what Gmail are doing is right
I fail to see why it is that I have to convince you any any such thing
I think you are taking me for the wrong person
I fail to see why it is that I have to convince you any any such thing
I think you are taking me for the wrong person
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 3:12:46 AM4/1/21
to
news:Vaadnfui1I2hN_n9...@brightview.co.uk...
so it can't possibly need your DoB for that reason
and demanding it when setting you up with an email account, because it wants
to use it for some other service that you may, or may not, use, just can't
be a legal use here, can it?
>
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:PZAKXJGJ...@perry.uk...
>> In message <s41iis$fq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:22 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021,
>> tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected to be
>>>"necessary"
>>
>> It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
>>
>> Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
>>
>> You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
>> information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
>> and you may not collect more information than you need.
>
> The email sent to the OP contains the following short explanation:
>
> " Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
but Gmail, of itself, doesn't bombard you with ads
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:PZAKXJGJ...@perry.uk...
>> In message <s41iis$fq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:22 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021,
>> tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected to be
>>>"necessary"
>>
>> It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
>>
>> Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
>>
>> You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
>> information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
>> and you may not collect more information than you need.
>
> The email sent to the OP contains the following short explanation:
>
> " Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
so it can't possibly need your DoB for that reason
and demanding it when setting you up with an email account, because it wants
to use it for some other service that you may, or may not, use, just can't
be a legal use here, can it?
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 3:25:07 AM4/1/21
to
Even the relevant ads often aren't relevant ...
So, having perused a travel site for a holiday to say, Cuba, I am constantly
bombarded with "you might find this holiday to Cuba interesting" profiling
the self same holiday that I have already looked at.
No Mr Google, I have already looked at that holiday and have decided that I
am not interested in it for whatever reason. If you want to target ads at
me that I might be interested in, you need to feed me with alternative
holidays in Cuba that don't have the same (whatever it was) reason for my
rejecting the first one that I looked at.
Quite why advertisers don't see this failing in Google (and the online ads)
and are happy to continue to pay gazzilions to Google for worthless
marketing, I have no idea.
Though actually, I did read a newspaper article earlier this week where some
advertisers are questioning the "bang per buck" that the get from online
advertising, but I can't find it now
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 3:32:06 AM4/1/21
to
news:EbCdnaNoCZwPevn9...@brightview.co.uk...
It's impossible to avoid Google adverts (except by running an ad blocker)
they appear on any website that has contracted Google to provide them with
adverts (which is pretty much everybody who has adverts)
based upon data collected from other web pages that you have visited who
also use Google to provide adverts for them
You don't need to use any Google services to get "Googled"
and you don't need to have a Google login associated with your browsing for
ads to be targeted based upon previous web browsing
they appear on any website that has contracted Google to provide them with
adverts (which is pretty much everybody who has adverts)
based upon data collected from other web pages that you have visited who
also use Google to provide adverts for them
You don't need to use any Google services to get "Googled"
and you don't need to have a Google login associated with your browsing for
ads to be targeted based upon previous web browsing
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 3:36:36 AM4/1/21
to
news:xsVKlGDO...@invalid.com...
really?
you don't have a little blob in the top right hand corner (of the Google
page) that tells you your login name
I've long given up trying to avoid being logged in to such sites. Not being
logged in doesn't stop them bombarding you with ads. It just stops you
doing useful stuff.
you don't have a little blob in the top right hand corner (of the Google
page) that tells you your login name
I've long given up trying to avoid being logged in to such sites. Not being
logged in doesn't stop them bombarding you with ads. It just stops you
doing useful stuff.
Roger Hayter
Apr 1, 2021, 3:38:14 AM4/1/21
to
join by personal recommendation, that there was some scandal about the Ts & Cs
saying Google would read your emails for information that might help them spam
you. So Gmail has always been part of the Google information gathering
system. Using Gmail requires you to agree to and facilitate this.
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Apr 1, 2021, 3:45:36 AM4/1/21
to
In message <s43rgf$q4i$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:07:59 on Thu, 1 Apr 2021,
Sorry, I thought you'd written "just what is the need...?", but if you
didn't, then ignore my answer.
--
Roland Perry
didn't, then ignore my answer.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 3:56:41 AM4/1/21
to
news:8f3mmEWU...@perry.uk...
I did write that
but that's because I am NOT convinced that ownership of an email account has
other responsibilities
so I still don't understand your position here
but that's because I am NOT convinced that ownership of an email account has
other responsibilities
so I still don't understand your position here
Roland Perry
Apr 1, 2021, 4:45:29 AM4/1/21
to
In message <s43ubc$hv4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:56:27 on Thu, 1 Apr 2021,
I'm trying to get you to think about other responsibilities.
--
Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry
michael adams
Apr 1, 2021, 5:05:25 AM4/1/21
to
"tim..." <timsn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:s43rp0$sj5$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Vaadnfui1I2hN_n9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:PZAKXJGJ...@perry.uk...
>>> In message <s41iis$fq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:22 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021, tim...
>>> <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected to be "necessary"
>>>
>>> It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
>>>
>>> Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
>>>
>>> You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
>>> information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
>>> and you may not collect more information than you need.
>>
>> The email sent to the OP contains the following short explanation:
>>
>> " Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
>> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
>
> but Gmail, of itself, doesn't bombard you with ads
>
> so it can't possibly need your DoB for that reason
No it can't, obviously.
>
> "michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Vaadnfui1I2hN_n9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:PZAKXJGJ...@perry.uk...
>>> In message <s41iis$fq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:22 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021, tim...
>>> <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected to be "necessary"
>>>
>>> It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
>>>
>>> Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
>>>
>>> You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
>>> information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
>>> and you may not collect more information than you need.
>>
>> The email sent to the OP contains the following short explanation:
>>
>> " Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
>> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
>
> but Gmail, of itself, doesn't bombard you with ads
>
> so it can't possibly need your DoB for that reason
Which is why Google take pains to carefully explain,
in tne phrase I just quoted above, it's to enable
personalisation *across Google*
And not as you appear to think for some reason to enable
personalisation *within Gmail*
Which as you rightly conclude above, would be rather pointless.
michael adams
posting exclusively through Giganews
Gmail
Gmail is not an independent entity which has objectives of its
own.
michael adams
Apr 1, 2021, 5:07:25 AM4/1/21
to
"Sara Merriman" <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s43chp$1kcb$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
This is what he posted
" It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these
days?"
at that stage he was unaware of the value which knowing a person's DOB can
have to advertisers. Had he realised this then he might not have been so
immediately suspicious. Who knows ?
As to the question of legality,which as I say the op was not concerned with,
what I'd rather overlooked up until recently is that gmail represents *social
media* to which quite possibly, extra considerations apply both in terms of
reputation management and maybe legality. IOW all my suggestions concerning
age restricted websites were obviously wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
In which, case given that social media can be seen as the means by which
children and vulnerable people may lay themselves open to exploitation its
perfectly understandable if social media providers, in order to be seen to
be acting responsibly in the matter request the users DOB. Which as I say,
may well be a legal requirement in some of the jurisdictions served by gmail.
The fact that this information just so happens to be of value more generally
to Google is simply a consequence of this Although quite how "unintended"
any of it is, is maybe a matter of debate.
As to quite why they asked for the OP in particular to provide this information,
right now, and all of a sudden - can only be a matter of speculation however.
michael adams
posting exclusively via Giganews.
..
Max Demian
Apr 1, 2021, 5:38:14 AM4/1/21
to
would be *very* intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a
non-existent/exaggerated problem that expects children to be insulated
from the online world.
> The fact that some adults may choose to feel outraged by such requests
> is unfortunate, but that's about it.
(or however they chose to verify DOB - which wouldn't work in any case);
wouldn't you - just to use, e.g. YouTube?
>> and I might not care if advertisement are relevant to me. If having supplied my DOB and
>> inside leg measurement, I am still plagued with irrelevant adverts, what recourse do I
>> have?
>
> That's very simple, stop using those services.
--
Max Demian
Max Demian
Apr 1, 2021, 5:42:40 AM4/1/21
to
On 01/04/2021 08:12, tim... wrote:
> "michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Vaadnfui1I2hN_n9...@brightview.co.uk...
> "michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Vaadnfui1I2hN_n9...@brightview.co.uk...
>> The email sent to the OP contains the following short explanation:
>>
>> " Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
>> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
>
> but Gmail, of itself, doesn't bombard you with ads
>
> so it can't possibly need your DoB for that reason
The Gmail app *does* include a few ads at the top of the list ("Ad" in a
>>
>> " Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
>> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
>
> but Gmail, of itself, doesn't bombard you with ads
>
> so it can't possibly need your DoB for that reason
box).
--
Max Demian
Max Demian
Apr 1, 2021, 5:50:22 AM4/1/21
to
On 01/04/2021 08:36, tim... wrote:
> "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:xsVKlGDO...@invalid.com...
> "Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:xsVKlGDO...@invalid.com...
>> I do not use my Gmail account when doing Google searches (I wouldn't
>> know how). I search as an anonymous user.
>
> really?
>
> you don't have a little blob in the top right hand corner (of the Google
> page) that tells you your login name
When I use Internet Explorer Google says "Sign in", but I can use the
>> know how). I search as an anonymous user.
>
> really?
>
> you don't have a little blob in the top right hand corner (of the Google
> page) that tells you your login name
search all the same; but, oddly, clicking on links in Thunderbird (my
Usenet program) wants you to log in first.
When I use Firefox (on the same laptop) Google has the "blob" (avatar)
belonging to my Gmail account - because I have logged onto Google in
that browser.
--
Max Demian
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 7:15:34 AM4/1/21
to
news:1yt0Nmd+...@perry.uk...
I have already made it clear
I can't think of any (that can't easily be automatically enforced by the
mail provider)
If you think that they are some, you are going to have to tell us, instead
of engaging in a pissing contest
I can't think of any (that can't easily be automatically enforced by the
mail provider)
If you think that they are some, you are going to have to tell us, instead
of engaging in a pissing contest
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 7:19:51 AM4/1/21
to
news:4eadnV5IuKXNCvj9...@brightview.co.uk...
Yes I know all that
but ITYWF that logging into your Gmail account will have automatically
logged you into the same account when you next access Google (via the same
browser - I suppose that doesn't apply if you access Gmail via a mail
client - if that is possible)
tim
but ITYWF that logging into your Gmail account will have automatically
logged you into the same account when you next access Google (via the same
browser - I suppose that doesn't apply if you access Gmail via a mail
client - if that is possible)
tim
michael adams
Apr 1, 2021, 8:22:17 AM4/1/21
to
news:A4adnWFhN53oCfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
That's not for *me* to say.
It's up to *you* and you alone to decide whether the clear disadvantages
which you personally find so objectionable when engaged in particular Internet
activities, outweigh any possible benefits you may derive from them.
That's something only *you* and you alone can decide for yourself bearing
in mind as I've pointed out more than once - *there simply is no such thing
as a free lunch*.
Well apart from Usenet and Wikipedia that is.
Basically when I do a Google search for some obscure historical figure from
the 16th century, footnoted in some book I'm reading, and Google comes up with
whole pages of results about that person in about 0.6 seconds - think of how many
warehouses of full servers, all humming away, it must take Google to manage that
- in less than a second ! I must admit I personally find it very difficult
to get too upset if someone else in the Googlersphere is being inconvenienced
by being subjected to too many gratuitous or inappropriate ads.
michael adams
posting exclusively via Giganews
....
It's up to *you* and you alone to decide whether the clear disadvantages
which you personally find so objectionable when engaged in particular Internet
activities, outweigh any possible benefits you may derive from them.
That's something only *you* and you alone can decide for yourself bearing
in mind as I've pointed out more than once - *there simply is no such thing
as a free lunch*.
Well apart from Usenet and Wikipedia that is.
Basically when I do a Google search for some obscure historical figure from
the 16th century, footnoted in some book I'm reading, and Google comes up with
whole pages of results about that person in about 0.6 seconds - think of how many
warehouses of full servers, all humming away, it must take Google to manage that
- in less than a second ! I must admit I personally find it very difficult
to get too upset if someone else in the Googlersphere is being inconvenienced
by being subjected to too many gratuitous or inappropriate ads.
michael adams
posting exclusively via Giganews
Kofi Libon
Apr 1, 2021, 8:22:34 AM4/1/21
to
On 2021-04-01, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> provider.
It's off topic for this ng (so like 90% of the posts here) but there is
a way to evade their demand. Rent a cheap VPS, install a vpn server on
it and route your phone's traffic through the vpn. The disadvantage is
it requires some technical trickery and a little more money. The
advantage is that the VPS provider's policies are likely to be much more
liberal than your mobile provider's.
--
Kofi
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2021 10:37:53 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
>
>> I would be outraged if I had to provide an image of my driving licence
>> (or however they chose to verify DOB - which wouldn't work in any case);
>> wouldn't you - just to use, e.g. YouTube?
>
> I had to when I wanted to have grown up access to my mobile phone
>
>> I would be outraged if I had to provide an image of my driving licence
>> (or however they chose to verify DOB - which wouldn't work in any case);
>> wouldn't you - just to use, e.g. YouTube?
>
> provider.
It's off topic for this ng (so like 90% of the posts here) but there is
a way to evade their demand. Rent a cheap VPS, install a vpn server on
it and route your phone's traffic through the vpn. The disadvantage is
it requires some technical trickery and a little more money. The
advantage is that the VPS provider's policies are likely to be much more
liberal than your mobile provider's.
--
Kofi
michael adams
Apr 1, 2021, 8:23:01 AM4/1/21
to
news:A4adnWFhN53oCfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
Many people whose careers have been destroyed solely as the result
of some questionable opinions they voiced maybe ten years ago, quite
possibly wish they'd been insulated from the online world at the time
as well.
Without wishing to widen this further, a person might almost be led to
believe that apart from the intrusive ads, and having to provide your
DOB etc. you personally regard "the online world" as a wholly welcome
development,
Despite the fact that it's effectively destroyed the music industry, professional
photography, conventional newsprint media, the bricks and mortar retail
industry, and provided social media which deliberately hooks users into seeking
approval from their peers; while at the same time enabling mob rule capable of
destroying people's careers within hours. And all in the interests of its main
purpose, which to repeat, is to try and sell as many things to as many people as
possible.
Quite why anyone would wish to deliberately expose *anyone* never mind a child to
such an online world in the first place, is maybe the question you should be asking
yourself .
michael adams
>
> That isn't the stated purpose; would require *proof* of DOB - which would be *very*
> intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a non-existent/exaggerated problem
> that expects children to be insulated from the online world.
Its not simply children who need to be insulated from the online world.
> That isn't the stated purpose; would require *proof* of DOB - which would be *very*
> intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a non-existent/exaggerated problem
> that expects children to be insulated from the online world.
Many people whose careers have been destroyed solely as the result
of some questionable opinions they voiced maybe ten years ago, quite
possibly wish they'd been insulated from the online world at the time
as well.
Without wishing to widen this further, a person might almost be led to
believe that apart from the intrusive ads, and having to provide your
DOB etc. you personally regard "the online world" as a wholly welcome
development,
Despite the fact that it's effectively destroyed the music industry, professional
photography, conventional newsprint media, the bricks and mortar retail
industry, and provided social media which deliberately hooks users into seeking
approval from their peers; while at the same time enabling mob rule capable of
destroying people's careers within hours. And all in the interests of its main
purpose, which to repeat, is to try and sell as many things to as many people as
possible.
Quite why anyone would wish to deliberately expose *anyone* never mind a child to
such an online world in the first place, is maybe the question you should be asking
yourself .
michael adams
Max Demian
Apr 1, 2021, 10:14:53 AM4/1/21
to
On 01/04/2021 12:19, michael adams wrote:
> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:A4adnWFhN53oCfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>> That isn't the stated purpose; would require *proof* of DOB - which would be *very*
>> intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a non-existent/exaggerated problem
>> that expects children to be insulated from the online world.
>
> Its not simply children who need to be insulated from the online world.
> Many people whose careers have been destroyed solely as the result
> of some questionable opinions they voiced maybe ten years ago, quite
> possibly wish they'd been insulated from the online world at the time
> as well.
That requires anonymity (or at least pseudonymity), not ID verification;
> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:A4adnWFhN53oCfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>> That isn't the stated purpose; would require *proof* of DOB - which would be *very*
>> intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a non-existent/exaggerated problem
>> that expects children to be insulated from the online world.
>
> Its not simply children who need to be insulated from the online world.
> Many people whose careers have been destroyed solely as the result
> of some questionable opinions they voiced maybe ten years ago, quite
> possibly wish they'd been insulated from the online world at the time
> as well.
the opposite. A thing that Facebook doesn't like.
> Without wishing to widen this further, a person might almost be led to
> believe that apart from the intrusive ads, and having to provide your
> DOB etc. you personally regard "the online world" as a wholly welcome
> development,
>
> Despite the fact that it's effectively destroyed the music industry, professional
> photography, conventional newsprint media, the bricks and mortar retail
> industry, and provided social media which deliberately hooks users into seeking
> approval from their peers; while at the same time enabling mob rule capable of
> destroying people's careers within hours. And all in the interests of its main
> purpose, which to repeat, is to try and sell as many things to as many people as
> possible.
>
> Quite why anyone would wish to deliberately expose *anyone* never mind a child to
> such an online world in the first place, is maybe the question you should be asking
> yourself .
The benefits of the Internet must, by far, exceed the harm, even with
stupid ads.
--
Max Demian
Roland Perry
Apr 1, 2021, 11:50:59 AM4/1/21
to
In message <s44a04$uno$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:15:15 on Thu, 1 Apr 2021,
I'm going to throw in the towel as I can't see anything useful coming
from further discussion here of this very complex matter.
--
Roland Perry
from further discussion here of this very complex matter.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
Apr 1, 2021, 1:45:54 PM4/1/21
to
news:3TFkFgCc...@perry.uk...
oh so you can't come up with a reason then
Roland Perry
Apr 2, 2021, 3:54:51 AM4/2/21
to
In message <s450s3$s6l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:45:39 on Thu, 1 Apr 2021,
tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> I'm going to throw in the towel
>
>oh so you can't come up with a reason then
No, I could, but I won't; it's just too much pushing water uphill
especially in the face of what I might perceive as hostility.
--
Roland Perry
tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> I'm going to throw in the towel
>
>oh so you can't come up with a reason then
especially in the face of what I might perceive as hostility.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
Apr 2, 2021, 9:55:49 AM4/2/21
to
news:vUKS0nXj...@perry.uk...
> it's just too much pushing water uphill especially in the face of what I
> might perceive as hostility.
there's be no hostility, apart from against the fact that you continue to
make cryptic comments about something that isn't the slightest bit obvious
and that you aren't prepared to explain
> In message <s450s3$s6l$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:45:39 on Thu, 1 Apr 2021,
> tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> I'm going to throw in the towel
>>
>>oh so you can't come up with a reason then
>
> No, I could, but I won't;
so again. it seems that you can't
> tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> I'm going to throw in the towel
>>
>>oh so you can't come up with a reason then
>
> No, I could, but I won't;
> it's just too much pushing water uphill especially in the face of what I
> might perceive as hostility.
make cryptic comments about something that isn't the slightest bit obvious
and that you aren't prepared to explain
michael adams
Apr 2, 2021, 3:59:47 PM4/2/21
to
news:66CdnWB5x71aUfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
but for entirely the wrong reasons.
Zuckerberg's reason - so at to keep tabs on users - the nobler reason so as not to
provide a platform which allowed anonymous people to post malicious falsehoods
which could potentially destroy reputations.
You have to feel for poor old Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey. All they ever wanted
was to launch platforms which would allow millions of users to talk about Britney
Spears or what they had for their dinner, and post pictures of their cats. And then
the likes of Donald Trump showed up, and wanted to join in.
michael adams
....
> On 01/04/2021 12:19, michael adams wrote:
>> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:A4adnWFhN53oCfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> That isn't the stated purpose; would require *proof* of DOB - which would be *very*
>>> intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a non-existent/exaggerated problem
>>> that expects children to be insulated from the online world.
>>
>> Its not simply children who need to be insulated from the online world.
>> Many people whose careers have been destroyed solely as the result
>> of some questionable opinions they voiced maybe ten years ago, quite
>> possibly wish they'd been insulated from the online world at the time
>> as well.
>
> That requires anonymity (or at least pseudonymity), not ID verification; the opposite.
> A thing that Facebook doesn't like.
Ironically one of the things Facebook got right (apart from making $billions) ,
>> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:A4adnWFhN53oCfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> That isn't the stated purpose; would require *proof* of DOB - which would be *very*
>>> intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a non-existent/exaggerated problem
>>> that expects children to be insulated from the online world.
>>
>> Its not simply children who need to be insulated from the online world.
>> Many people whose careers have been destroyed solely as the result
>> of some questionable opinions they voiced maybe ten years ago, quite
>> possibly wish they'd been insulated from the online world at the time
>> as well.
>
> That requires anonymity (or at least pseudonymity), not ID verification; the opposite.
> A thing that Facebook doesn't like.
but for entirely the wrong reasons.
Zuckerberg's reason - so at to keep tabs on users - the nobler reason so as not to
provide a platform which allowed anonymous people to post malicious falsehoods
which could potentially destroy reputations.
You have to feel for poor old Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey. All they ever wanted
was to launch platforms which would allow millions of users to talk about Britney
Spears or what they had for their dinner, and post pictures of their cats. And then
the likes of Donald Trump showed up, and wanted to join in.
michael adams
....
Max Demian
Apr 2, 2021, 5:16:18 PM4/2/21
to
On 02/04/2021 18:42, michael adams wrote:
> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:66CdnWB5x71aUfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 01/04/2021 12:19, michael adams wrote:
>>> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>> news:A4adnWFhN53oCfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> That isn't the stated purpose; would require *proof* of DOB - which would be *very*
>>>> intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a non-existent/exaggerated problem
>>>> that expects children to be insulated from the online world.
>>>
>>> Its not simply children who need to be insulated from the online world.
>>> Many people whose careers have been destroyed solely as the result
>>> of some questionable opinions they voiced maybe ten years ago, quite
>>> possibly wish they'd been insulated from the online world at the time
>>> as well.
>>
>> That requires anonymity (or at least pseudonymity), not ID verification; the opposite.
>> A thing that Facebook doesn't like.
>
> Ironically one of the things Facebook got right (apart from making $billions) ,
> but for entirely the wrong reasons.
>
> Zuckerberg's reason - so at to keep tabs on users - the nobler reason so as not to
> provide a platform which allowed anonymous people to post malicious falsehoods
> which could potentially destroy reputations.
What about Dissidents?
> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:66CdnWB5x71aUfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 01/04/2021 12:19, michael adams wrote:
>>> "Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>> news:A4adnWFhN53oCfj9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> That isn't the stated purpose; would require *proof* of DOB - which would be *very*
>>>> intrusive, however it's done; and is a solution to a non-existent/exaggerated problem
>>>> that expects children to be insulated from the online world.
>>>
>>> Its not simply children who need to be insulated from the online world.
>>> Many people whose careers have been destroyed solely as the result
>>> of some questionable opinions they voiced maybe ten years ago, quite
>>> possibly wish they'd been insulated from the online world at the time
>>> as well.
>>
>> That requires anonymity (or at least pseudonymity), not ID verification; the opposite.
>> A thing that Facebook doesn't like.
>
> Ironically one of the things Facebook got right (apart from making $billions) ,
> but for entirely the wrong reasons.
>
> Zuckerberg's reason - so at to keep tabs on users - the nobler reason so as not to
> provide a platform which allowed anonymous people to post malicious falsehoods
> which could potentially destroy reputations.
(Usually assumed to be protesting against repressive regimes like China
or Russia, but, hey! why not /also/ ones against Britain or the US?)
--
Max Demian
michael adams
Apr 3, 2021, 5:36:13 AM4/3/21
to
news:I8SdnX4Bx5cXFPr9...@brightview.co.uk...
Except there's no way of distinguishing between genuine dissidents and bogus
dissidents acting on behalf of foreign goverments or monied interests at home.
There's not even any way of knowing whether dissident organisations might
not have been thoroughly penetrated by the regimes they're supposedly
criticising so as to promote bogus information and arguments which can then
be easily refuted.
The whole idea of the internet as a tool of democracy went out of the window years
ago - as soon as governments world wide, along with everyone else, finally caught
on to the potential revealed by the Arab Spring.
michael adams
posting exclusively via giganews
dissidents acting on behalf of foreign goverments or monied interests at home.
There's not even any way of knowing whether dissident organisations might
not have been thoroughly penetrated by the regimes they're supposedly
criticising so as to promote bogus information and arguments which can then
be easily refuted.
The whole idea of the internet as a tool of democracy went out of the window years
ago - as soon as governments world wide, along with everyone else, finally caught
on to the potential revealed by the Arab Spring.
michael adams
posting exclusively via giganews
AnthonyL
Apr 3, 2021, 7:47:26 AM4/3/21
to
millions and the problems, not Trump.
Should have simply stuck to friends and cats with a limit of say 200
max (does anyone actually have 200 friends - not just people you know,
actual friends?)
oh and I thought it started so students could work out which girls
were available in the college.
--
AnthonyL
Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?
michael adams
Apr 3, 2021, 11:04:06 AM4/3/21
to
"AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:606854d0...@news.eternal-september.org...
potential as do Britney Spears, pictures of cats and Donald Trump.
As it happens I believe both Facebook and Twitter were wrong to
censor Trump. His followers aren't simply going to go away as
a result, and neither are the underlying problems which he was able
to exploit.
michael adams
....
Roger Hayter
Apr 3, 2021, 3:04:30 PM4/3/21
to
On 3 Apr 2021 at 14:17:43 BST, ""michael adams"" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
>
Normally I'd agree with you, but he did more or less openly support an armed
invasion of their legislature building. I think it was probably doing him a
favour stopping him incriminating himself even more.
--
Roger Hayter
wrote:
>
invasion of their legislature building. I think it was probably doing him a
favour stopping him incriminating himself even more.
--
Roger Hayter
Algernon Goss-Custard
Apr 3, 2021, 4:14:24 PM4/3/21
to
tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> posted
When I do access Gmail via the web, my browser doesn't remember it,
because I have it set to clear cookies every time it closes.
--
Algernon
>but ITYWF that logging into your Gmail account will have automatically
>logged you into the same account when you next access Google (via the
>same browser - I suppose that doesn't apply if you access Gmail via a
>mail client - if that is possible)
It is possible and that is what I do 95% of the time.
>logged you into the same account when you next access Google (via the
>same browser - I suppose that doesn't apply if you access Gmail via a
>mail client - if that is possible)
When I do access Gmail via the web, my browser doesn't remember it,
because I have it set to clear cookies every time it closes.
--
Algernon
Algernon Goss-Custard
Apr 3, 2021, 4:15:23 PM4/3/21
to
tim... <timsn...@gmail.com> posted
>I've long given up trying to avoid being logged in to such sites. Not
>being logged in doesn't stop them bombarding you with ads. It just
>stops you doing useful stuff.
I don't see any ads when I use Google, unless you count the people who
appear on the results list, and have presumably paid to be at the top of
it.
--
Algernon
>"Algernon Goss-Custard" <B...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:xsVKlGDO...@invalid.com...
>>
>> I do not use my Gmail account when doing Google searches (I wouldn't
>>know how). I search as an anonymous user.
>
>really?
>
>you don't have a little blob in the top right hand corner (of the
>Google page) that tells you your login name
No.
>news:xsVKlGDO...@invalid.com...
>>
>> I do not use my Gmail account when doing Google searches (I wouldn't
>>know how). I search as an anonymous user.
>
>really?
>
>you don't have a little blob in the top right hand corner (of the
>Google page) that tells you your login name
>I've long given up trying to avoid being logged in to such sites. Not
>being logged in doesn't stop them bombarding you with ads. It just
>stops you doing useful stuff.
I don't see any ads when I use Google, unless you count the people who
appear on the results list, and have presumably paid to be at the top of
it.
--
Algernon
Martin Harran
Apr 4, 2021, 6:42:57 AM4/4/21
to
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 21:22:47 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard
<B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> posted
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:14:32 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 29/03/2021 04:10 pm, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>>> Normally I collect my incoming email from Gmail by POP3, but
>>>> occasionally I use the webmail interface instead, because it allows me
>>>> to check if Gmail has spam-binned any genuine messages.
>>>>
>>>> This morning, on trying to log in to webmail, I got a screen saying :
>>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> Add your birthday.
>>>>
>>>> [graphic - exclamation point in warning triangle] Your date of birth is
>>>> missing. This information is needed to comply with the law.
>>>>
>>>> [data entry boxes]
>>>>
>>>> This won't make your birthday public.
>>>> accounts.google.com
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>
>>>Or subtract.
>>
>>Just be careful; DOB is often used as a security question if you
>>forget your password or try to access your account from an unknown
>>device. If you really don't want to give your actual DOB - and I'm
>>struggling to find a good reason why not -
>
>You just wrote that DOB is often used as a security question if you
>forget your password,
Many sites still do and I simply pointed out the importance of using a
date you can remember. Gmail are not the only mainstream organisation
- just a couple of days ago, I forgot a password I had used for a new
Microsoft Outlook account and DOB was one of a number of security
questions asked; if I hadn't been able to remember what date I used, I
would not have been able to recover my access.
>and you're wondering why I don't want to give my
>actual DOB to anybody who asks?
As pointed out else-thread, DOBs are easily found out, so it is a bit
naïve to think that not giving it to reputable organisations like
Gmail somehow improves your security.
>
>>then use something you will
>>easily remember e.g. your spouse's DOB, the DOB for your first or last
>>child, the date of your marriage or some other memorable date.
>>
>>As to why they are insisting on it, probably to do with you declaring
>>you are over 18 and ok with "adult" content and advertising.
>
>No, if you read my OP attentively you'll know that is not the case.
I did read it attentively. You said the question was asked when you
were using the *webmail interface* which will expose you to
advertising and possibly to adult content - especially iwhen checking
your spam folder which is your declared reason for using it.
<B...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> posted
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 17:14:32 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 29/03/2021 04:10 pm, Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>>> Normally I collect my incoming email from Gmail by POP3, but
>>>> occasionally I use the webmail interface instead, because it allows me
>>>> to check if Gmail has spam-binned any genuine messages.
>>>>
>>>> This morning, on trying to log in to webmail, I got a screen saying :
>>>>
>>>> *****
>>>> Add your birthday.
>>>>
>>>> [graphic - exclamation point in warning triangle] Your date of birth is
>>>> missing. This information is needed to comply with the law.
>>>>
>>>> [data entry boxes]
>>>>
>>>> This won't make your birthday public.
>>>>
>>>> Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
>>>> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more.
>>>>
>>>> You can change this information and manage how it's used at
>>>> Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including to
>>>> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more.
>>>>
>>>> accounts.google.com
>>>>
>>>> ****
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
>>>> boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these
>>>> days?
>>>
>>>Add five years, a month or two and several days to your true DOB.
>>>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
>>>> boxes. A scam? Or was it really Google? Or are they the same thing these
>>>> days?
>>>
>>>
>>>Or subtract.
>>
>>Just be careful; DOB is often used as a security question if you
>>forget your password or try to access your account from an unknown
>>device. If you really don't want to give your actual DOB - and I'm
>>struggling to find a good reason why not -
>
>You just wrote that DOB is often used as a security question if you
>forget your password,
Many sites still do and I simply pointed out the importance of using a
date you can remember. Gmail are not the only mainstream organisation
- just a couple of days ago, I forgot a password I had used for a new
Microsoft Outlook account and DOB was one of a number of security
questions asked; if I hadn't been able to remember what date I used, I
would not have been able to recover my access.
>and you're wondering why I don't want to give my
>actual DOB to anybody who asks?
As pointed out else-thread, DOBs are easily found out, so it is a bit
naïve to think that not giving it to reputable organisations like
Gmail somehow improves your security.
>
>>then use something you will
>>easily remember e.g. your spouse's DOB, the DOB for your first or last
>>child, the date of your marriage or some other memorable date.
>>
>>As to why they are insisting on it, probably to do with you declaring
>>you are over 18 and ok with "adult" content and advertising.
>
>No, if you read my OP attentively you'll know that is not the case.
I did read it attentively. You said the question was asked when you
were using the *webmail interface* which will expose you to
advertising and possibly to adult content - especially iwhen checking
your spam folder which is your declared reason for using it.
Ian Jackson
Apr 4, 2021, 8:52:55 AM4/4/21
to
In message <al2j6ghr4li9ccjcj...@4ax.com>, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> writes
>
>As pointed out else-thread, DOBs are easily found out, so it is a bit
>naïve to think that not giving it to reputable organisations like
>Gmail somehow improves your security.
OK - would you like to tell me what mine is? And just in case you're
right, preferably via a personal email?
>
>
--
Ian
<martin...@gmail.com> writes
>
>As pointed out else-thread, DOBs are easily found out, so it is a bit
>naïve to think that not giving it to reputable organisations like
>Gmail somehow improves your security.
right, preferably via a personal email?
>
>
--
Ian
Ian Jackson
Apr 4, 2021, 11:17:10 AM4/4/21
to
In message <u4adnRPVipU5Qvn9...@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
>But the DOB is not required "to comply with the law" and I might not
when you need to start worrying!
--
Ian
Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
>On 31/03/2021 17:58, michael adams wrote:
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:PZAKXJGJ...@perry.uk...
>>> In message <s41iis$fq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:22 on Wed, 31 Mar
>>>2021, tim...
>>> <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>> In message <s41iis$fq$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:23:22 on Wed, 31 Mar
>>>2021, tim...
>>> <timsn...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>> It's almost certainly a breach of the rule requiring data collected
>>>>to be "necessary"
>>>
>>> It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
>>>
>>> Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
>>>
>>> You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
>>> information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
>>> and you may not collect more information than you need.
>>>>to be "necessary"
>>>
>>> It breaches the old DPA 1998 principle 3:
>>>
>>> Personal data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive
>>>
>>> You should only collect the bare minimum; you may not collect
>>> information that is not immediately relevant to the specified purpose,
>>> and you may not collect more information than you need.
>> The email sent to the OP contains the following short explanation:
>> " Your age may be used for personalisation across Google, including
>>to
>> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
>>to
>> make the ads you see more relevant to you. Learn more."
>care if advertisement are relevant to me. If having supplied my DOB and
>inside leg measurement, I am still plagued with irrelevant adverts,
>what recourse do I have?
If you suddenly get inundated with adverts for cheap funerals, THAT'S
>inside leg measurement, I am still plagued with irrelevant adverts,
>what recourse do I have?
when you need to start worrying!
--
Ian
Martin Harran
Apr 5, 2021, 4:24:08 AM4/5/21
to
for example "DOB is trivial to elicit or uncover".
Out of curiosity, if you don't reveal your DOB online, what do you do
about services that have it as a requirement, do you just forgo those
services?
tim...
Apr 13, 2021, 3:15:48 AM4/13/21
to
news:+N7sJWNJ+KagFwM$@invalid.com...
sorry for the late follow up
the ads aren't *on* Google
they are on other sites that you visit, transparently delivered to you by
Google (as contracted to do so by the site in question)
the ads aren't *on* Google
they are on other sites that you visit, transparently delivered to you by
Google (as contracted to do so by the site in question)
tim...
Apr 13, 2021, 3:21:27 AM4/13/21
to
news:2s4+xGOH...@invalid.com...
Oh that's why then
I find it impossible to work like that
with usenet dying, most discussion groups on subjects that I still
participate in have moved to online forums. Having to log into those every
time I start up my browser is an unacceptable PITA
Not to mention web sites that I buy things from would not remember my login
in details either
I find it impossible to work like that
with usenet dying, most discussion groups on subjects that I still
participate in have moved to online forums. Having to log into those every
time I start up my browser is an unacceptable PITA
Not to mention web sites that I buy things from would not remember my login
in details either
Andy Burns
Apr 25, 2021, 9:11:40 AM4/25/21
to
Andy Burns wrote:
> Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>
>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
>> boxes.
>
> There is nothing in the DoB fields on my accounts.google.com page, they
> have never previously asked me for it when I sign in to gmail, and
> didn't just now.
Just to say that this week, "spanner" notifications to enter DoB have
started appearing on my android phone, so far it lets me continue
without bothering ...
> Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>
>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
>> boxes.
>
> have never previously asked me for it when I sign in to gmail, and
> didn't just now.
Just to say that this week, "spanner" notifications to enter DoB have
started appearing on my android phone, so far it lets me continue
without bothering ...
Roland Perry
Apr 25, 2021, 9:22:25 AM4/25/21
to
In message <iel83t...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:25 on Sun, 25
Apr 2021, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Yes, here too they are springing out of the woodwork with a vengeance.
Is this perhaps a side effect of the reported jurisdictional move for
Google accounts from Ireland to California, as a Brexit "dividend"?
--
Roland Perry
Apr 2021, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Is this perhaps a side effect of the reported jurisdictional move for
Google accounts from Ireland to California, as a Brexit "dividend"?
--
Roland Perry
Andy Burns
May 14, 2021, 1:32:59 PM5/14/21
to
Roland Perry wrote:
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>>
>>>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
>>>> boxes.
>
>>> There is nothing in the DoB fields on my accounts.google.com page,
>>> they have never previously asked me for it when I sign in to gmail,
>>> and didn't just now.
>>
>> Just to say that this week, "spanner" notifications to enter DoB have
>> started appearing on my android phone, so far it lets me continue
>> without bothering ...
>
> Yes, here too they are springing out of the woodwork with a vengeance.
My phone has been nagging me for my DoB for a few weeks now, but didn't
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Algernon Goss-Custard wrote:
>>>
>>>> It wouldn't let me go any further unless I entered something in the
>>>> boxes.
>
>>> There is nothing in the DoB fields on my accounts.google.com page,
>>> they have never previously asked me for it when I sign in to gmail,
>>> and didn't just now.
>>
>> Just to say that this week, "spanner" notifications to enter DoB have
>> started appearing on my android phone, so far it lets me continue
>> without bothering ...
>
> Yes, here too they are springing out of the woodwork with a vengeance.
enforce anything, I generally login to a google account on the laptop on
most days, today seems to be the day they start playing hardball "your
DoB is required to comply with the law"
So now I'm over a 100 years old according to google.
anon
May 14, 2021, 4:39:36 PM5/14/21
to
"Andy Burns" <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:ig7qi5...@mid.individual.net...
>
> So now I'm over a 100 years old according to google.
That probably disqualifies you from the Sun Life Over 50's Plan,
> So now I'm over a 100 years old according to google.
so no personalised message from Carol, but you can probably
expect a lot of stuff about cheap cremations.
michael adams
...
Tim Jackson
May 24, 2021, 8:49:38 AM5/24/21
to
On Fri, 14 May 2021 18:32:53 +0100, Andy Burns wrote...
> My phone has been nagging me for my DoB for a few weeks now, but didn't
> enforce anything, I generally login to a google account on the laptop on
> most days, today seems to be the day they start playing hardball "your
> DoB is required to comply with the law"
Me too. So I followed the "further information" link to find out why a
DoB was allegedly required by law.
This yielded nothing directly relevant, except for details of the many
and varied Google services available. It seems some of them can be
tailored to present age-appropriate information. But none that I am
even remotely interested in.
I haven't given them my date of birth. I did leave a complaint on their
feedback form, which I assume they will ignore. Presumably at some
point I'll get so fed up with the nagging that I either give them false
info or delete my account.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
> My phone has been nagging me for my DoB for a few weeks now, but didn't
> enforce anything, I generally login to a google account on the laptop on
> most days, today seems to be the day they start playing hardball "your
> DoB is required to comply with the law"
DoB was allegedly required by law.
This yielded nothing directly relevant, except for details of the many
and varied Google services available. It seems some of them can be
tailored to present age-appropriate information. But none that I am
even remotely interested in.
I haven't given them my date of birth. I did leave a complaint on their
feedback form, which I assume they will ignore. Presumably at some
point I'll get so fed up with the nagging that I either give them false
info or delete my account.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Robert
May 24, 2021, 1:49:35 PM5/24/21
to
default dob which I use on other shopping type sites.
Seems to me that an "over 18" tick box would meet Googles claimed "legal
requirement".
Philip Hole
May 24, 2021, 6:28:47 PM5/24/21
to
01/02/50 and omit to explain that it is the American format.
But Google is American so that should be alright :-)
--
Flop
Michael Nyby
Jul 31, 2021, 5:36:11 AM7/31/21
to
I am M.I.H. and would like to add to your discussion and that is information I posted on a now locked thread at this location:
https://support.google.com/accounts/thread/101721719?hl=en
The information is a result of many hours of research and I can provide the raw data, if anyone cares to view that, but the posts I did in that thread are a good summary of what I found to be the situation with this issue. (My posts start at July 24th. or the 23rd, depending upon your time zone.)
Only one important issue is the last post I did was deleted. That is actually a compliment from the Google employee that made that decision. Because of my work some years ago on that forum I know it was an employee that did that delete and not one of the volunteer staff.
I suspect the reason the post was deleted was because I made the point that if a customer wanted to help the company sales team by giving Google their specific date of birth, then they should do so. That was the only new opinion I added to that last post, so it must be the reason it was deleted.
If the owner of this group allows my post, I will then keep an eye out for any questions anyone here may have for me.
Oh yes, if you wish to view a copy of the deleted post, I have that.
https://support.google.com/accounts/thread/101721719?hl=en
The information is a result of many hours of research and I can provide the raw data, if anyone cares to view that, but the posts I did in that thread are a good summary of what I found to be the situation with this issue. (My posts start at July 24th. or the 23rd, depending upon your time zone.)
Only one important issue is the last post I did was deleted. That is actually a compliment from the Google employee that made that decision. Because of my work some years ago on that forum I know it was an employee that did that delete and not one of the volunteer staff.
I suspect the reason the post was deleted was because I made the point that if a customer wanted to help the company sales team by giving Google their specific date of birth, then they should do so. That was the only new opinion I added to that last post, so it must be the reason it was deleted.
If the owner of this group allows my post, I will then keep an eye out for any questions anyone here may have for me.
Oh yes, if you wish to view a copy of the deleted post, I have that.
Algernon Goss-Custard
Jul 31, 2021, 6:32:09 AM7/31/21
to
Michael Nyby <michael.i...@gmail.com> posted
replies" doesn't do anything.
>
>Only one important issue is the last post I did was deleted. That is
>actually a compliment from the Google employee that made that decision.
>Because of my work some years ago on that forum I know it was an
>employee that did that delete and not one of the volunteer staff.
>
>I suspect the reason the post was deleted was because I made the point
>that if a customer wanted to help the company sales team by giving
>Google their specific date of birth, then they should do so. That was
>the only new opinion I added to that last post, so it must be the
>reason it was deleted.
>
>If the owner of this group allows my post, I will then keep an eye out
>for any questions anyone here may have for me.
>
>Oh yes, if you wish to view a copy of the deleted post, I have that.
--
Algernon
>I am M.I.H. and would like to add to your discussion and that is
>information I posted on a now locked thread at this location:
>
>https://support.google.com/accounts/thread/101721719?hl=en
>
>The information is a result of many hours of research and I can provide
>the raw data, if anyone cares to view that, but the posts I did in that
>thread are a good summary of what I found to be the situation with this
>issue. (My posts start at July 24th. or the 23rd, depending upon your
>time zone.)
I can't see any posts after "glenby2u 4/15/21". Clicking on "Show all
>information I posted on a now locked thread at this location:
>
>https://support.google.com/accounts/thread/101721719?hl=en
>
>The information is a result of many hours of research and I can provide
>the raw data, if anyone cares to view that, but the posts I did in that
>thread are a good summary of what I found to be the situation with this
>issue. (My posts start at July 24th. or the 23rd, depending upon your
>time zone.)
replies" doesn't do anything.
>
>Only one important issue is the last post I did was deleted. That is
>actually a compliment from the Google employee that made that decision.
>Because of my work some years ago on that forum I know it was an
>employee that did that delete and not one of the volunteer staff.
>
>I suspect the reason the post was deleted was because I made the point
>that if a customer wanted to help the company sales team by giving
>Google their specific date of birth, then they should do so. That was
>the only new opinion I added to that last post, so it must be the
>reason it was deleted.
>
>If the owner of this group allows my post, I will then keep an eye out
>for any questions anyone here may have for me.
>
>Oh yes, if you wish to view a copy of the deleted post, I have that.
Algernon
Michael Nyby
Jul 31, 2021, 9:38:31 PM7/31/21
to
Algernon, if Google doesn't like your browser (and I won't go into too much detail on which ones, as there is some security risk if you ID yours in public) - - - anyway, what you might be seeing is that little circle thingy with 150 or 151 inside. You'll need to use a browser that lets you click on that and see the rest of the posts.
===== Copy starts =====
I can't see any posts after "glenby2u 4/15/21". Clicking on "Show all replies" doesn't do anything.
Algernon
===== Copy ends =====
===== Copy starts =====
I can't see any posts after "glenby2u 4/15/21". Clicking on "Show all replies" doesn't do anything.
===== Copy ends =====
0 new messages