Gmail and TCD

ApeXaviour

Okay lads relax... settle this please


with 3 rounds of bare knuckle boxing.

Pet

My money's on shay, he knows about embroidery and kittens.

fiveone

shay_562 wrote:

I'd thank you not to comment on my activity or lack thereof in relation to student issues. Things like the acting course being shut down, DUCAC introducing ludicrous charges that could kill minority sports in Trinity, the USI's blood ban campaign - that's stuff I'm willing to complain about and get active about where possible. G-mail sending me the occasional spam targetted e-mail? Not exactly my hugest worry, and your patronising, high-handed tone when you passive-aggressively criticise me for said lack of worry (having referred to those of us who support the move as being myopically self-concerend and wilfully ignorant upthread) quite honestly offends me.

What offends me on the other hand is your utter disdain for issues that don't fall inside your personal domain, namely those of the "students" social group. Not to put words in your mouth, but going by your attitude in relation to the coke ban (comiserations) you seem to feel that bodies like the SU are somehow non-political and should deal solely with student welfare. Well, I'm sorry, but this notion of neutrality and non-biased service is an utter fabrication, as much as Ireland's notion of neutrality in relation to Shannon is. A non-political union is an oxymoron. One reason the student union has the issues it does is because it excludes groups with different beliefs (e.g. smiliing, unquestioning complicity with google and coke in the face of huge changes in college taking place arguably as a direct result of corporatisation e.g. acting courses being cut)

Spam targeted email is not the only issue - it is the ethic behind it, their ability to read potentially important information in transit from a university, the very centre of education and supposed intellectual freedom which maintains our social structure, which I find disturbing. The change is not acceptable fundamentally because it is not necessary, though its going to make Hego a very happen man, and probably put smiles on Googles faces.
If you really cared about the way things are going in trinity you'd focus on root issues and not temporary, self centered solutions.

shay_562 wrote:

If they can provide a better service at a lower cost, then by all means. What is it with you and your insane, irrational hatred of corporations? You went on a similar kick about Coke before the referendum - quite honestly, I find your under-educated, over-opinionated rantings lacking in any logical thread beyond "Big business is bad. It's always evil, no matter what, because I said so" and, quite frankly, irritating beyond belief.

My opinions are neither insane nor irrational, and on the contrary to yours, rather well informed about issues not in relation to my esteemed self directly. Google is a search engine, a filter for the vast body of information that constitutes the internet. If you cannot realise the danger of a single, profit oriented body governing this then the charge of ignorance is valid to you alone. Have a look at the Google and China thread. What will happen, do you think, were ryanair to take over aer lingus? Would this be a good thing for the consumer? Should we be happy about Google being forced upon every single student without exception, thus taking away any power one has is relation to corporate ethics re: consumer choice?

The answer is no. And relax over there, you might give yourself a hernia. Lets not lose the claim to objectivity.

Nietzschean

lydonst wrote:

Spam targeted email is not the only issue - it is the ethic behind it, their ability to read potentially important information in transit from a university, the very centre of education and supposed intellectual freedom which maintains our social structure, which I find disturbing. The change is not acceptable fundamentally because it is not necessary, though its going to make Hego a very happen man, and probably put smiles on Googles faces.
If you really cared about the way things are going in trinity you'd focus on root issues and not temporary, self centered solutions.

Google send spam targeted email? first i've heard of this and i get several hundred messages a day through their systems......


And em just a wtf there, necessary? do you sit on college boards? do you really have a clue why this is done? For one, it provides a far better interface, it allows the academics to get their tcd email on blackberrys amongst other things(yes something some of them have been looking for) , It'll likely save the college hundreds of thousands in the staff, power, computers cost per year. I'll happily let google run it for free so we can get a better service and spend that dosh elsewhere.

ability to read potentially important information in transit from a university,

Like i said before, email is not a secure medium, one would be have to be entirely stupid to treat it as such. encrypt your emails if they are very sensitive. Its amazingly self absorbed to think for even a second anyone in google could really be arsed reading your mail...

My opinions are neither insane nor irrational

Depends on ones point of view.

Google is a search engine, a filter for the vast body of information that constitutes the internet. If you cannot realise the danger of a single, profit oriented body governing this then the charge of ignorance is valid to you alone.

Uh huh, so the college are now blocking the msn, yahoo, and A9 search engines?

Have a look at the Google and China thread.

And that more or less entirely disproves your point, compeition, or more corporations invovled doesn't lead to any change in approach to such situations. ALL the big corporations do the same, heck i would too.

What will happen, do you think, were ryanair to take over aer lingus?

I imagine 2 airlines with crap customer service will be come the one with just more low cost flights for the consumer?

Would this be a good thing for the consumer?

yes. Would it be a bad thing for the aer lingus unions , yes also.

Should we be happy about Google being forced upon every single student without exception, thus taking away any power one has is relation to corporate ethics re: consumer choice?

Right so how long before you go on a rampage to remove windows off all the ISS computers? not like we've alot of choice there.... You can easily forward all your mail off google if you don't wanna use gmail, odds are it won't be scanned as you never view it on their systems.

Just a point - you can pick up tcd mail on blackberries

Nietzschean

imap support iirc isn't on all blackberries(they are horrible, horrible yokes)

It works for Vodafone anyways... not sure bout the other crowd

Nietzschean

original_psycho wrote:

It works for Vodafone anyways... not sure bout the other crowd

it wouldn't be operator dependant, its on the blackberry model's, looking at the one vodafone have on their page i don't see any mention of imap support there.....

(forwarding all mails to vodafone for sending onto the blackberry isn't a particularly good solution)

fiveone

Nietzschean wrote:

Google send spam targeted email? first i've heard of this and i get several hundred messages a day through their systems......

Links profiled by email

Nietzschean wrote:

do you sit on college boards? do you really have a clue why this is done? For one, it provides a far better interface, it allows the academics to get their tcd email on blackberrys amongst other things

No, and no - thats why I'm asking you for reasons, yet not getting any apart from superfluities like interface.

Nietzschean wrote:

It'll likely save the college hundreds of thousands in the staff, power, computers cost per year. I'll happily let google run it for free so we can get a better service and spend that dosh elsewhere.

Like drama departments? Or maybe we could get Google to fund that too. Once we see what kind of actors the market wants we can start churning out brad pitt clones with a G tatooed on their foreheads.

Nietzschean wrote:

Like i said before, email is not a secure medium, one would be have to be entirely stupid to treat it as such. encrypt your emails if they are very sensitive. Its amazingly self absorbed to think for even a second anyone in google could really be arsed reading your mail...

The point is precisely the fact that this is occurring on a college wide scale.
And its not conspiracy theory its marketing. Email may not be secure in general, but to be insecure by default to a single body is worrying. Google having marketing profile information about a large and influential section of society is potentially more dangerous than simply a link on a website now and again - It allows Google incredibly advanced means of targeting an audience. They could control the information you search for by building a profile from the vast information they have stored on your behalf (which could also be used for legal matters.) In this sense they have a very real power over what you read, see etc. This could of course all be dismissed if it wasn't for Google's complicity in censorship in China. This does not suit a university enviroment.

Nietzschean wrote:

Uh huh, so the college are now blocking the msn, yahoo, and A9 search engines?

Why would they, the danger lies in a single body possessing control of access to information.

Nietzschean wrote:

And that more or less entirely disproves your point, compeition, or more corporations invovled doesn't lead to any change in approach to such situations. ALL the big corporations do the same, heck i would too.

Good for you, and, precisely my point. Irrational corporation hatred huh?

Nietzschean wrote:

I imagine 2 airlines with crap customer service will be come the one with just more low cost flights for the consumer?

yes. Would it be a bad thing for the aer lingus unions , yes also.

Eh, no. Cornered market = higher cost flights and nothing you can do about it. Thats right, you, not just the unions you don't care about anyway.

Nietzschean wrote:

Right so how long before you go on a rampage to remove windows off all the ISS computers? not like we've alot of choice there.... You can easily forward all your mail off google if you don't wanna use gmail, odds are it won't be scanned as you never view it on their systems.

We don't with windows perhaps but we do with Google.

And its not purely about my information, nor my well being, but a concern for everyone regardless of political persuasion.

Time Magazine

lydonst wrote:

Like drama departments?

Yes. College is running a fine deficit at the moment. We save on email, we can spend on drama.

Here's one for you: if this was to save enough to pay for the drama course, would you support it?

Nietzschean

lydonst wrote:

Links profiled by email

Contextual links along the left hand side? its not exactly a spam email, heck they actually have proved usefull to me in the past...

No, and no - thats why I'm asking you for reasons, yet not getting any apart from superfluities like interface.

Thats not a superfluities, thats the entire reason people do most things with software , to improve the interface. We would also get more or less 100% uptime from google hosting it. I do believe off-site hosting of the email was looked at before for college email, now we just get it for free.

Like drama departments?

I don't see why not....

Or maybe we could get Google to fund that too.

Don't see why they would....

Once we see what kind of actors the market wants we can start churning out brad pitt clones with a G tatooed on their foreheads.

So your against all corporations supplying money to universities? em unless the govt seriously stepped up funding that'd be amazingly stupid. I am personally funded in part by intel for my research, alot of the hardware i use to do that research was donated by IBM. So frankly it might be fine for some arts department that just needs some books to go it alone off government funds, but even that doesn't seem likely the rest of us are happy to form partnerships with industry to actually be able to do some productive research.

The point is precisely the fact that this is occurring on a college wide scale.

so? it doesn't defeat the point...

And its not conspiracy theory its marketing. Email may not be secure in general, but to be insecure by default to a single body is worrying.

Our emails were previously insecure to a bunch of places, both in ISS and in heanet. All email is insecure, people just delude themselves into thinking otherwise........

Google having marketing profile information about a large and influential section of society is potentially more dangerous than simply a link on a website now and again - It allows Google incredibly advanced means of targeting an audience.

Have you read their privacy statements? do they use the information from multiple emails to build up a full customer profile? it seems to be what your asserting, i'd like to see some evidence of that...

They could control the information you search for by building a profile from the vast information they have stored on your behalf (which could also be used for legal matters.)

And them improving my search results would be bad? or are you suggesting they skew the non-advert results to favour companies who pay them? any number of companies could do a whole host of things. Amazon has far more detailed profiles on alot of people within the college i would think, if you wanna get yer panties in a knot i'd recommend them first....

As for legal matters our isp's are already required to store our search queries for years upon years, and our emails too if i recall. Don't see how google affects this one way or another...

In this sense they have a very real power over what you read, see etc.

And em, they can't do most of this already? Most media is massively skewed based on what corporation owns the outlet anyway, systems like google news do give a more unbiased view by snapshotting multiple news outlets. Sure they could restrict it to a few, but then people would look elsewhere. Storm in a tea cup?

This could of course all be dismissed if it wasn't for Google's complicity in censorship in China.

I don't see how thats relevent in the slightest. Google do add a warning to pages where they have filtered out results, which is better than what previously existed there. Staying out of the market entirely would have just ment their shareholders replacing some directors and going in 6months later. Its silly idealism to assume a company trying for global leadership in a field is going to stay out of the country with the most consumers in that field.

This does not suit a university enviroment.

I don't see how? it seems to be suiting plenty of our collegues just fine across the pond.... and they wouldn't need to worry about the financial cost as much of running their own systems.

Why would they, the danger lies in a single body possessing control of access to information.

This might be somewhat valid, if every single university did this and there wasn't a whole bunch under the windows live program.....

If it wasn't for google it would just be ms taking this as a field for itself again, there is plenty of 'call home' software in ms products, they have an emense ability to gather user data..go on a crusade there... EVERYBODY does it, heck there are plenty of researchers in tcd who work on how better to analyse that data...

Good for you, and, precisely my point. Irrational corporation hatred huh?

Yes it is. Corporations are driven by shareholders, if you wanna hate someone hate them. Frankly i think its amazingly idealist and irrational to even dream that anyone would have stayed out of china. Heck every government is bending over backwards to be china's biggest buddy, they should be leading by moral example if anyone is to, expecting profit focused companies to do it is amazingly naieve.

Eh, no. Cornered market = higher cost flights and nothing you can do about it.

Because if ryanair do take over aerlingus they are suddenly going to jack up prices despite the compeition on all their routes remaining the same more or less?(they don't compete on very many routes anymore....)

Thats right, you, not just the unions you don't care about anyway.

Your quite right i don't care about them, and i don't see this as having a downside for me except in some bizzare senario where every other airline shuts down...

We don't with windows perhaps but we do with Google.

We have just as good a choice in comparason to windows as we do to google, if not more for alot of senarios infact.

And its not purely about my information, nor my well being, but a concern for everyone regardless of political persuasion.

Who brought political persuasion into this? and i encrypt sensitive emails when sent through gmail or anywhere else, like any sensibile person. I don't see why you or anyone else can't do the same.

fiveone

Nietzschean wrote:

Contextual links along the left hand side? its not exactly a spam email, heck they actually have proved usefull to me in the past...

so? it doesn't defeat the point...

Our emails were previously insecure to a bunch of places, both in ISS and in heanet. All email is insecure, people just delude themselves into thinking otherwise........

Have you read their privacy statements? do they use the information from multiple emails to build up a full customer profile? it seems to be what your asserting, i'd like to see some evidence of that...

And them improving my search results would be bad? or are you suggesting they skew the non-advert results to favour companies who pay them? any number of companies could do a whole host of things. Amazon has far more detailed profiles on alot of people within the college i would think, if you wanna get yer panties in a knot i'd recommend them first....

As for legal matters our isp's are already required to store our search queries for years upon years, and our emails too if i recall. Don't see how google affects this one way or another...

Because if ryanair do take over aerlingus they are suddenly going to jack up prices despite the compeition on all their routes remaining the same more or less?(they don't compete on very many routes anymore....)

Your quite right i don't care about them, and i don't see this as having a downside for me except in some bizzare senario where every other airline shuts down...

And em, they can't do most of this already? Most media is massively skewed based on what corporation owns the outlet anyway, systems like google news do give a more unbiased view by snapshotting multiple news outlets. Sure they could restrict it to a few, but then people would look elsewhere. Storm in a tea cup?

I don't see how thats relevent in the slightest. Google do add a warning to pages where they have filtered out results, which is better than what previously existed there. Staying out of the market entirely would have just ment their shareholders replacing some directors and going in 6months later. Its silly idealism to assume a company trying for global leadership in a field is going to stay out of the country with the most consumers in that field.

I don't see how? it seems to be suiting plenty of our collegues just fine across the pond.... and they wouldn't need to worry about the financial cost as much of running their own systems.

We have just as good a choice in comparason to windows as we do to google, if not more for alot of senarios infact.

First off I'd appreciate you not taking my points out of context because its clear you haven't grasped the gist of what I'm saying. The central point lies in the fact that Google will grow to possess a hegemony of information. This means not only tailor made marketing (this in itself is a fact of life) and profile building, but that fact it will become absolutely necessary for this to happen should I want to check or respond to college email. I can choose to avoid Amazon/set up multiple accounts as I see fit.

Noone is defending the security of email in general. The problem is that it will be insecure by nature to a single body. Regarding "improved" search results, and "more unbiased" news sources - this does not change the fact the Google are presenting this information to you for commercial benefit and not for the good of their health. Objectivity is not what Google strive for, as we have seen in China. The most one could claim in defense of this is pure functionality, but this in itself is a hugely different matter to the supposedly non-biased Google you're portraying here. This applies too to what you were saying about Google "showing" you the filtered search results - the fact of the matter is you don't know what has actually occurred (the layman certainly doesen't.)It is a representation of objectivity.In relation to legal matters and isps, an i.p. address is a different thing to a college profile.

The vital point is that Google are growing to a point at which they can effectively corner the market of the distribution and dissemination of information, be it purely from an marketing perspective, random words taken from email - or conveying more specific academic/legal information. Now, while Google may not be a threat to this directly, it has already been stated that "ideally" noone should send important information through email. Well, it happens, and not all of us are knowledgable enough to encrypt or be aware of the ability to encrypt emails. The possibility nonetheless remains. The university should be as self-sufficient as possible when it comes to the distribution of information.

I do not believe it is irrational to distrust the fact that a single corporate body, biased by definition in relation to the market place, should an uncontested access to profit in the form of how we distribute info. From a economic perspective, and I really shouldn't have to explain this to you - yes, ryanair would eventually higher their prices. Prices are low as a result of competition in the low-fares section of the market. The same process could occur with Google. And yet again, we wouldn't have the defense of consumer choice in the matter, which is in all cases our only defense against such occurences.

The only valid point you've made is in relation to the concrete proof of all this (consumer profiles, use of specific info) occuring. Well, I don't have any. This does not mean we let Google come in with open arms, having had absolutely no consultation on the matter. Potential dangers are dangers nonetheless, we already have an instance of this occuring in China.

Nietzschean wrote:

Thats not a superfluities, thats the entire reason people do most things with software , to improve the interface. We would also get more or less 100% uptime from google hosting it. I do believe off-site hosting of the email was looked at before for college email, now we just get it for free.

In the context of the above concerns, I really couldn't give a siht if my blackberrry doesn't get email.

Nietzschean wrote:

I don't see why not....

Don't see why they would....

The point was metaphorical, and was in relation to the corporatisation of the university enviroment, where courses are cut because they are not profitable.

Nietzschean wrote:

So your against all corporations supplying money to universities? em unless the govt seriously stepped up funding that'd be amazingly stupid. I am personally funded in part by intel for my research, alot of the hardware i use to do that research was donated by IBM. So frankly it might be fine for some arts department that just needs some books to go it alone off government funds, but even that doesn't seem likely the rest of us are happy to form partnerships with industry to actually be able to do some productive research.

As much as is realistically possible, yes. The university is a place of education, not a factory for monkeys making chips for Intel.

Nietzschean wrote:

This might be somewhat valid, if every single university did this and there wasn't a whole bunch under the windows live program.....

If it wasn't for google it would just be ms taking this as a field for itself again, there is plenty of 'call home' software in ms products, they have an emense ability to gather user data..go on a crusade there... EVERYBODY does it, heck there are plenty of researchers in tcd who work on how better to analyse that data..

You're going to have to explain this, It doesn't make sense as far as I can see.

Nietzschean wrote:

Yes it is. Corporations are driven by shareholders, if you wanna hate someone hate them. Frankly i think its amazingly idealist and irrational to even dream that anyone would have stayed out of china. Heck every government is bending over backwards to be china's biggest buddy, they should be leading by moral example if anyone is to, expecting profit focused companies to do it is amazingly naieve.

Nonsense, accountability must lie somewhere and that is with the company in question, and the manner in which we engage with them. According to your logic we would have capitalist anarchy.

Nietzschean wrote:

Who brought political persuasion into this? and i encrypt sensitive emails when sent through gmail or anywhere else, like any sensibile person. I don't see why you or anyone else can't do the same.

This was in relation to an earlier argument.

I would not be supportive of using the money saved from selling what's left of the sound transit of information in our university to support the drama dept. This would basically constitute selling the deptartment to Google. While we mightn't end up with ads during plays, the compromise would be made elsewhere, and IMO it is not one that is defensible.

gilroyb

Lydonst, I don't want to talk about the China thing because it was correctly cut out of this thread earlier, but you keep using it as your main/only point. How about a counter example. Say for example a 'coffee shop' chain from the Netherlands decides to set up in Ireland. It is perfectly legal for people from Amsterdam to smoke hash in the the shops in the Netherlands, so they decide to sell such products in Dublin even though it is against the laws of the land in which they're operating. This is the equivalent of what you're asking Google to do.

Google has been acted as a dutiful corporation by putting the wishes of the local government ahead of their own personal wishes. They have limited the service they offer (in accordance with the law of the land), rather than offering no service. The people using the service are aware their results have been reduced, and yet decide they still wish to use it. For your information, they also block some results in France/Germany with regard to the Holocaust due to the laws there on Holocaust denial. Are the French and German governments also cruel dictatorships that should be ignored by international corporations?

Please don't continue referring to China in this thread, the point you're making is that we can be confident that Google will comply with all local laws on data protection.

On another one of your points, what is it that you think Google will do with your emails? You talk of universities as 'the very centre of education', are you afraid that people being able to read internal emails might allow some of our knowledge to escape to the pagans outside of universities? Or do you think that google will hinder the passage of emails and only deliver certain ones? I think you should sit down and really consider what you actually fear google are going to do, because so far you have only displayed an irrational fear of a company that has been successful.

Moorsy

lydonst wrote:

.
From a economic perspective, and I really shouldn't have to explain this to you - yes, ryanair would eventually higher their prices. Prices are low as a result of competition in the low-fares section of the market. The same process could occur with Google. And yet again, we wouldn't have the defense of consumer choice in the matter, which is in all cases our only defense against such occurences.

I agree with most of what you said in your post, but the above point is a little different. There are many barriers to entry into the air market such as massive costs of buying a plane, this isn't present for internet search engines, so if Google did fully take over there wouldn't be much to stop competitors coming in who have the same mind-set as you, and provide a services for likeminded people.

Although this tread has gone a little over board with rebuttal after rebuttal I'll leave it at this: I trust the employees of this college, who can be fired for malpractice and held accountable, much more than I trust the good people of Google. I think the protection of personal information is vital and if it is infringed upon, it not only affects me it affects every-single person who has a computer and uses it to view, send or question information.

I still have a voice in my head questioning why are Google providing this service for? Maybe its because, we, students, are very 'marketable'. If this is the case I'm offended that I have been turned into something which can be used for the benefit of a company, and the College and SU were complicate in this. I don't want Google personalising ad's for me, I don’t want them knowing what I like, its my personal information not something that should be used so once again someone can profit.

Why does the college do this? I’m not fully certain, but by the very fact that I have to ask means that the College authorities have failed and the SU have failed; failed to make me aware to the reasons for switching over. What benefits it may have for me as a student, what draw backs there may be etc. I just want to know its safe, I trust the people in ISS but I don't know who will be monitoring the bots who view our mail, I don’t know how to ask that person to stop or help me, there invisible…

Time Magazine

Moorsy wrote:

I don't want Google personalising ad's for me, I don’t want them knowing what I like, its my personal information not something that should be used so once again someone can profit.

Ugh.

It's a script that searches your email for keywords. Given the location of Trinity, my ads often offer hostels in Dublin. I don't care whether they offer hostels in Dublin or viagra, I tend not to read them. It's no great conspiracy. It's just in case you happen to looking to buy something the ads are effective and you can find what you're looking to buy just as Google know how to find stuff when you're not looking to buy. If there was no advertising there would be no Google.

It's just a slightly more sophisticated manner of Bavaria advertising in Hot Press rather than Hello.

They're not going to spam. The worst thing they can do is segregate you by your interests and advertise accordingly rather than advertising en-masse. Oh noes!!

It keeps me my @tcd.ie email address, it frees up money to spend on things like undergraduate journals or drama courses, it gives me 2,834 MB of space rather than 60MB and it's far better aesthetically and functionally (better search, etc.). The only cost is accurate advertising.

Get yer tin-foil hats off lads. It's a fantastic deal. If somebody thinks they can make a profit from it, I've absolutely no problem with that.

fiveone

I'm using it merely as an example, and in fact the cases of France and Germany are as apt as examples. My point is that you simply cannot claim that Google can provide an objective source of information as a search results/advertising/news filter and much more by its very nature as a corporate entity (law abiding or not.) What I'm trying to highlight is the danger in allowing a single entity such free reign over information distribution - especially as a multi-national subject on such a scale to economic and political agencies. I'm not claiming a especial claim to objectivity for other orginisations in particular, but their plurality does make up for this to some degree. I'm not "asking Google to do" anything - I'm trying to highlight the danger in a single body claiming control, however marginal it may appear, of sources of information. I'm not saying Google is evil - ethics don't come into it.

The point in relation to email specifically was about the collection of information as a means to advertising, and I can't stress this enough - it's not about individual cases. This means that no, I don't think that information is going to miraculously escape the hallowed university grounds. The reason I'm not giving more concrete examples is because I'm speaking speculatively. If Google controls/has access to all information, even within centres of supposed free thinking, and is subjective to political and economic forces as a single body we can expect precisely the opposite, namely a tightening of politically sensitive info, a lessening of consumer choice, and consequently less freedom. What angers me is that this does not even seem to surface as an issue - its seen purely as "business", more web space etc. which are really just fob offs.

Duffman

gilroyb wrote:

Lydonst, I don't want to talk about the China thing because it was correctly cut out of this thread earlier, but you keep using it as your main/only point. How about a counter example. Say for example a 'coffee shop' chain from the Netherlands decides to set up in Ireland. It is perfectly legal for people from Amsterdam to smoke hash in the the shops in the Netherlands, so they decide to sell such products in Dublin even though it is against the laws of the land in which they're operating. This is the equivalent of what you're asking Google to do.

Just a technical point.. The "real world" coffee shop analogy doesn't really work here because as far as the "laws of the land" are concerned, the law that governs what services a company is permitted to provide online is the law of the country in which they have their servers.. (witness thepiratebay.org, for example).

Google can offer unfiltered services to Chinese users from the US until the cows come home but they won't settle for this because without servers on Chinese soil the service is ****e and they already have a pathetic share of the search market in that country. They made a conscious decision not to put machines hosting gmail, blogger and related services in China so they could not be compelled to release user data by the authorities.

aaanyway, slightly less OT..

You have nothing to fear from The Google, mkay? Even if something went horribly wrong and your super-secret TCD emails got into the "wild", you'd have a fairly good chance of successfully suing the company.

Google has a huge amount of servers in Ireland. Your data is mirrored across the world but at least some of it is stored here. As I said above, servers in Ireland = application of Irish law. There's your remedy.

So how about less of the abstract examples and irrational fears? You're concerned about the switch to Gmail, fair enough. So give us concrete examples, real reasons that are relevant to students as to why this is a bad idea. This will make for a more interesting thread and people might start to take your concerns seriously.

fiveone

Duffman wrote:

You have nothing to fear from The Google, mkay? Even if something went horribly wrong and your super-secret TCD emails got into the "wild", you'd have a fairly good chance of successfully suing the company.

Google has a huge amount of servers in Ireland. Your data is mirrored across the world but at least some of it is stored here. As I said above, servers in Ireland = application of Irish law. There's your remedy.

I don't agree. I repeat myself with great hesitation, (wouldn't want to be boring) but I am not speaking specifically about individual privacy of information, nor specifically about emailed information.

Your point about legality, as I see it, doesn't really come into play unless it is proven that a law has been broken, e.g. non-ethical conduct in relation to information etc. Google is at the moment acting completely within legal bounds (consumer profiling etc.) - this does not prevent my disagreement with the negative effects of its growth on our society.

Nothing would have to "go wrong" for Google's takeover to be negative in my view. It is wrong by nature, by allowing free reign to Google to distribute and control information both in College and in general.

Frankly I think I've argued my points adequately above so unless you want to take issue with a more specific aspect of what I've said, I'd ask you (not you specifically) to refrain from condescending gestures - "tin hats" comes to mind.

Duffman wrote:

So how about less of the abstract examples and irrational fears? You're concerned about the switch to Gmail, fair enough. So give us concrete examples, real reasons that are relevant to students as to why this is a bad idea. This will make for a more interesting thread and people might start to take your concerns seriously.

Firstly, abstraction doesn't equal irrationality, so be careful what you dismiss out of hand. What you seem to be insisting, though, is that is I give you some kind of practical example in relation to student life.

1.Google controlling our email is symptomatic or the corporatisation of our university. Our degrees become more and more market oriented, focusing less on content and more on functionality. I speculate that most art and language oriented departments make continual losses - she we cut them as we cut drama? I don't feel you can defend removing the drama dept. in addition to accepting a Google takeover of our email system without being vulnerable to the charge of ignorance.

2.More fundamentally, I mentioned earlier how Google has market-oriented interests, and is particularly vulnerable to political and economic influence. If Google controls a)our distribution of information through email b)our searching for information (research, news, history, culture) this means that what we are taught grows more and more central to what we buy, in addition to what we simply say through supposedly "harmless" keywords in email. Our freedom to research, to communicate, to learn, to make informed decisions about anything becomes hampered. University should promote a degree of free thinking, not promote ideology.

3. Thus whatever benefits can be gained from a switch to Google (interface,more space,lifetime registration) become superfluous, especially considering most people already have the choice to open up a gmail account. Accepting a place at TCD now means you are being exposed, without your consent, to student profiled marketing, of which these harmless links are only a single aspect.



I understand the viewpoint that this seems an unnecessary (and apparently boring) politicisation of what essentially seems a harmless upgrade of our email system. I am arguing, however, that the situation is necessarily more complex than this. I would argue that we should try and see past immediate superfluities of "more pressing concerns."

In this sense I can't help but be reminded of the Coke debate. On the one hand you have the Quinn camp insisting that the "students" need to be catered to first and foremost, that anything that takes place outside of the university is irrelavent. I disagree - these "students" are in fact a very specific group of people with very concrete values, who try to maintain the illusion that the university is some island in the sky when it quite clearly is not.

This issue is relevant to us not only as students in our day to day lives, but in our future lives outside college.

Crash

lydonst wrote:

1.Google controlling our email is symptomatic or the corporatisation of our university. Our degrees become more and more market oriented, focusing less on content and more on functionality. I speculate that most art and language oriented departments make continual losses - she we cut them as we cut drama? I don't feel you can defend removing the drama dept. in addition to accepting a Google takeover of our email system without being vulnerable to the charge of ignorance.

first off, i'm assuming you're an arts student. correct me if i'm wrong, but its the issue relating to degrees becoming more market oriented that makes me assume this.

In the hamilton end, certain degrees will always have to have a market related leaning. for instance, i'm a computer science student. My course is hugely dictated by the market, because the market is what makes my course relevant. there are the basics of computing, which we learn over the years, and then there are the courses which change depending on the development of the current industry. Its necessary. Its also necessary in other courses where people are encouraged to work within the system whenever possible. weird that huh? Universities in the current time are NOT the same as the idyllic idea of universities - they have to be able to cope and change and are supposed to be able to educate a student to the point where they are well read, well versed, and well capable of handling themselves in the real world. some of my courses are funded by industry leaders, with equipment being provided etc. Coke funded a professorship in BESS.

As a second note, i'd like to point out that at the moment, the accounts would show that a number of the science end courses are suffering a LOT worse on the balance sheet than a lot of the arts courses - this theory about language courses being next to go could well be completely and utterly wrong depending on how a few things develop. Now, I know this only deals with a small point of your above comments so dont worry, i'm not just arguing isolated points without accepting i'm doing it

I'm of the opinion, especially in a period when universities are as underfunded as they are, that the needs of the students should be considered first and foremost, with everything else put secondary. because, surprisingly enough, thats what they are there for.

3. Thus whatever benefits can be gained from a switch to Google (interface,more space,lifetime registration) become superfluous, especially considering most people already have the choice to open up a gmail account. Accepting a place at TCD now means you are being exposed, without your consent, to student profiled marketing, of which these harmless links are only a single aspect.

One thing: until the final specifics of what deal has been struck between trinity and google come out, making claims like this are irrational and silly. I'm thinking that gmails spiders and marketing stuff will possibly be against ISS's privacy policies, and until we get clarification about this, its a pretty superfluous argument.

I'm not disagreeing with you here by the way, If its a full standard gmail interface with ads and spiders keyword searching, I won't be happy. but we're getting ahead of ourselves until we know the full details, especially when we have a computer service and college which has reasonably strenuous internal rules relating to email, spam and privacy.

In this sense I can't help but be reminded of the Coke debate. On the one hand you have the Quinn camp insisting that the "students" need to be catered to first and foremost, that anything that takes place outside of the university is irrelavent. I disagree - these "students" are in fact a very specific group of people with very concrete values, who try to maintain the illusion that the university is some island in the sky when it quite clearly is not.

out of interest, here's a quick question. If a company which people had ethical problems offered a large amount of something which would benefit students on an individual basis, in a no strings attached deal, (or for instance an attempt to butter up the SU) would you take it or leave it?

personally if it were something which would benefit a large proportion of students, I'd take the deal in a second. The job of the Students Union is to ensure the best for all 15000+ of us, and in my eyes NOTHING should ever be put ahead of that.


Oh and just a closing note, as you brought it up, this is NOT to turn into a coke debate. I will delete posts.

Dave3x

&#231 wrote: »

The job of the Students Union is to ensure the best for all 15000+ of us, and in my eyes NOTHING should ever be put ahead of that.

Too right.

Jim_No.6

So where do I click?

xebec

Not up and running yet, hopefully later this month.

fiveone

&#231 wrote: »

1. first off, i'm assuming you're an arts student. correct me if i'm wrong, but its the issue relating to degrees becoming more market oriented that makes me assume this.

Universities in the current time are NOT the same as the idyllic idea of universities - they have to be able to cope and change and are supposed to be able to educate a student to the point where they are well read, well versed, and well capable of handling themselves in the real world. some of my courses are funded by industry leaders, with equipment being provided etc. Coke funded a professorship in BESS.

2. I'm of the opinion, especially in a period when universities are as underfunded as they are, that the needs of the students should be considered first and foremost, with everything else put secondary. because, surprisingly enough, thats what they are there for.

personally if it were something which would benefit a large proportion of students, I'd take the deal in a second. The job of the Students Union is to ensure the best for all 15000+ of us, and in my eyes NOTHING should ever be put ahead of that.

3. One thing: until the final specifics of what deal has been struck between trinity and google come out, making claims like this are irrational and silly. I'm thinking that gmails spiders and marketing stuff will possibly be against ISS's privacy policies, and until we get clarification about this, its a pretty superfluous argument.

4. out of interest, here's a quick question. If a company which people had ethical problems offered a large amount of something which would benefit students on an individual basis, in a no strings attached deal, (or for instance an attempt to butter up the SU) would you take it or leave it?

1. Yes, but thats not an argument. Market oriented education does not produce informed members of society - though perhaps in its stead ones that are specialised to the point of obliviosness to all other aspects of society, apart from what they can sell and how they can profit.

Idyllic idea of university? Theres nothing idyllic about it - its a goal that should be striven towards ESPECIALLY in the face of the corporatisation you see as so unavoidable. And by the way, coke are interested in funding your course to see educated and able to "care care of yourself" only in so far as it serves them for profit. And if your only goal is a well paying job which guarantees your personal security at the expense of others then obviously university is not providing an adequate education.

2. I agree, but your conception of the "needs of the students" is misguided. Immediate concerns will not benefit us in the long run, they are petty distractions and fodder for the popularity contest ("election")

People, cut the solidarity crap. You're scoring points off thin air.

3. Well its still up in the air in any case, and its only about half of my point. I think we can nonetheless expect some degree of compromise in one way or another, whether direct or not.

4. No, there is no such thing as a no strings attached deal. Companies act upon a basis of profit, and such a move would have to be placed under extreme scrutiny, were it to be considered.


I apologise (crash) about the tone of this - it was written in reaction to the flippantly ignorant bile above.

gilroyb

Just because you don't agree with other posters doesn't mean their reasoned posts are 'bile'.

Your tone in a number of posts suggests that you really believe if everyone else would just think about this issue they'd definitely agree with you. It may be a strange suggestion, but other posters here have considered the issue and come to a different conclusion than you have. This does not make their contribution bile.

Gmail will give Trinity a professional and robust email system which allows students keep and easily search trough emails for life. Each poster here has weighed up the situation and come to a conclusion, this thread is not a discussion, rather a constant repetition of two opposing views. I agree with the posters who say that by using our strong position as students we can use our endowment to gain more for the university as a whole, and so have more support for the teaching programs.

In my opinion this thread is well past its lock by date, but that's just my opinion.

fiveone

Seen as you have nothing else to say than defend single line comments placed in the middle of a discussion, you're opinion on the status of the thread is to my mind irrelavent. I don't use the term bile, but quite frankly when someone repeats arguments that have been dealt with above and all throughout the thread, as well as interjecting with trite one word "opinions," then I feel more than justified. Having personally been accused of being "irrational," "uninformed," and "boring," I feel its my place to reply in such a manner, and if you feel you have nothing else to offer than hackneyed defenses of so called "informed personal opinion" then I suggest you take your opinion elsewhere.

gilroyb

lydonst wrote:

I don't use the term bile

lydonst wrote:

ignorant bile above

lydonst wrote:

Nothing would have to "go wrong" for Google's takeover to be negative in my view. It is wrong by nature, by allowing free reign to Google to distribute and control information both in College and in general.

Your viewpoint is clearly stated, you see no room for Google in Trinity, and yet you feel the need to constantly repost on this thread, without giving any further arguments for your position. The responses to your responses have shrunk to the single line comments that you decry because there has been nothing new added to either sides arguments in pages. Perhaps it is your haste to decide that others

lydonst wrote:

opinion on the status of the thread is to my mind irrelavent

, is behind your constant repetition in an attempt to show other posters the truth, without accepting that people can differ on a subject for reasons other than one side being misinformed.

fiveone

gilroyb wrote:

The responses to your responses have shrunk to the single line comments that you decry because there has been nothing new added to either sides arguments in pages.

That's quite frankly not the case. There's been a lot of repetition, but that only occurs when people think they can just bypass everything that's been said with their two cents on the matter - showing a) their ignorance, in which case they either haven't read the above post or b) the fact I wasn't clear enough in stated it. Both cases are, you understand, as exasperating for me as for you.

Also, single words are not arguments, they are merely cheeky comments, and seen as these people seem to have no rational opinion behind them they can be completely disregarded. I couldn't care less what you think unless you're prepared tell me why you think it.

gilroyb wrote:

Perhaps it is your haste to decide that others , is behind your constant repetition in an attempt to show other posters the truth, without accepting that people can differ on a subject for reasons other than one side being misinformed.

By all means prove me wrong. You're opinion will remain in my eyes uninformed unless you can argue it coherently. And I feel that people's silence for "other" reasons is nothing but an excuse, so unless you're prepared to argue rationally I think you can keep your opinions to yourself.

The bile response you're quoting was actually a typo - put "lightly" after bile. Shows nonetheless though that you're not engaging with the topic so much as latching on to irrelevancies to attack me.

xebec

I'm bored by this, ok lydonst we get the idea that you don't want google in college, now can we move on?

Time Magazine

xebec wrote:

I'm bored by this, ok lydonst we get the idea that you don't want google in college, now can we move on?

No! It's very important and everyone should know about it! The sky is falling!

PHB

Who cares really?

It's like the switch from webmail to mymail, except now we get to keep email for longer. I look forward to having my tcd email for life now, so I'm happy. This really isn't a big deal, anything that people think might happen probably won't, it's just people are afraid of change.