This doesn’t seem like withholding features because you don’t let them process your data, but that they CANT give you these features unless they have the data to do it — like, They obviously need to get your email data to give you flight info in calendar. Am I missing something…?
nerdjon · 11h ago
Right, I am normally very quick to criticize google with their "privacy" tactics and have largely cut google out of my life...
But this seems... right? and long overdue. If they can't look at your data they can't do these things.
The way they are framing this however, yeah that is a bit shady and would likely encourage more people to allow it. Reminds me of the tactics Facebook tried with the app tracking apple did. But... still.
Now if only google could also ask for the permission of the person sending you the email that would be great, but that is a pipe dream.
diggan · 8h ago
The problem is the bundling of consent. I understand they need to use that specific piece of data if I want to use that particular feature, but they could also have given the choice of "Let us use the data for the feature, but nothing beyond that", together with "Use the data for improving the services for everyone" and "Don't use the data for anything", just like it was before.
Instead, they're bundling "Use the data for the functionality" and "Let Google store the data indefinitely, and use for improving any other Google service", which is the part that leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.
Some relevant parts that many comments here seemed to have missed:
> When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research
oaiey · 10h ago
Correct. But bundling matters (I have to confirm not only the event forwarding but also Gemini and search features). And the fineprint surely allows them also to do more than just that.
znpy · 11h ago
> Am I missing something…?
Yes. You can process data “one time” without further access, you don’t need to use data to train an llm to do those kind of stuff.
jsnell · 11h ago
Your data is not being used to train an LLM even if you click "yes" to this.
malfist · 11h ago
And you know this how?
danpalmer · 11h ago
Disclaimer, I work at Google, but I recommend reading the ToS for Google consumer and business services, and I believe the short version of the policies on this have been documented on the Google blog several times. I can't comment on the policy directly, but encourage you to research it, there's a pretty straightforward answer.
Separately, the industry standard elsewhere appears to be that if you're a free user your data is used for training, and if you're a paying user it's not.
darthcloud · 11h ago
It's so straightforward that you can't comment on it without risking retaliation?
I am either reading the wrong ToS, or not getting it [1]:
Permission to use your content
[...]
This license is for the limited purpose of:
[...]
- developing new technologies and services for Google consistent with these terms
The last item sounds like Google can use my content to train an LLM, no?
> Your content is not used for any other customers. Your content is not human reviewed or used for Generative AI model training outside your domain without permission.
And I think the default assumption has to be that those policies are actually followed. If you think they aren't, the burden of proof is on you to show they aren't.
a0123 · 9h ago
What the OP of that comment and yourself have missed is that Google is not trustworthy enough to give it permission, which the user you're responding to pretty much suggested as a solution (Google should be trustworthy to be given a one-off permission).
The amount of times Google has been caught out doing things they shouldn't be means that no, no one has to prove that it's a reasonable assumption that Google follows policies, not even their own.
It's for you to prove that they can be trusted (good luck with that!).
mvdtnz · 4h ago
In that case what do you care if you click yes or no? If you don't trust Google to abide by their own terms what makes you think they'll respect your "no"? Surely at that level of trust you would just stop using their product?
Mordisquitos · 11h ago
To be fair, can you even know they won't do it if you click "no"?
notyourwork · 11h ago
And meta hasn’t pirated the world’s library… it’s business as usual.
jsnell · 11h ago
> Either allow us to process and use your data however we want, or disable these existing features we've offered for many years
That's not an accurate description. It's not "however they want", it's pretty clearly scoped for the data being used across Workspace apps.
> such a great direction to take your service
Also, none of this is new. That setting has been around to control exactly those features for years[0]. It's off by default in some countries, on by default in others, depending on the local laws/regulations.
It's new in the way that I couldn't proceed to use gmail web interface unless I made a choice. And the documentation link made it clear they won't just use the data between Workspace apps, it's for "improving the services for everyone" and "selected" 3rd parties.
Features I used to be able to use yesterday are no longer possible to use without agreeing to that new data sharing, it seems
jsnell · 10h ago
You're in the EU, right? In that case these features have been off by default for years (I posted a link to the 2021 documentation showing that, but I'm 95% sure it was already the case pre-Covid). If you've been using these features for years, it kind of suggests you'd already consented to exactly this level of data use before, and just forgot about it.
What's the documentation link?
diggan · 8h ago
> You're in the EU, right?
Yes.
> If you've been using these features for years
I haven't agreed to any of those features explicitly, the thing with flights/reservations appearing in Google Calendar has been a feature for years and don't recall that needing an explicit agreement that Google can use that same data for improving other Google services. It wasn't until today (it seems) they asked for explicit permission for that.
I'm pretty sure what's happened is that you'd agreed to it and forgotten. These features were very explicitly turned off in the EU half a decade ago, and all European users had to make an explicit decision of whether to opt in or not via exactly this kind of modal consent dialog.
Fair. But I don't think that page is saying what you originally said it did. They're not asking for consent for using data for product improvements or sharing with third parties. Consent is the stated legal basis for using the data for providing the features. Legitimate interest is the basis for using the data for product improvements. I can see no claim about data being shared with third parties.
diggan · 7h ago
> European users had to make an explicit decision of whether to opt in or not via exactly this kind of modal consent dialog.
Ok, lets assume I did accept it (or not), then why ask again? Clearly something has changed, otherwise they'd just use my previous consent (or lack of).
> They're not asking for consent for using data for product improvements
My reading of that is that they are, some highlights you might have missed:
> > When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research
That basically says they can use the data as long as it ends up being used for a new product/feature, which can essentially be anything.
jsnell · 7h ago
But they're not asking for your consent for that.
They're saying that if you use these features, they have a legal basis (legitimate interest) other than consent to use your data for product improvements.
The only thing they're asking for consent is for providing the features. Which you appear to want to use, and which genuinely can't be provided without access to the data, so where is the problem?
(I don't think it is as unbounded as you claim. They'd still be limited by their other policies, which for Workspace are quite restrictive, and by what EU DPAs would actually find reasonable to be covered by legitimate interest. It is not a free ticket to do anything you want.)
BlackFly · 11h ago
Its apparently a false dichotomy of "Allow Gemini access to your data" or "Disable display of email events in calendar". Although maybe under the hood they were always using ML and the new ML algorithm is an LLM...
oneeyedpigeon · 11h ago
> depending on the local laws/regulations
Don’t be ~~evil~~ any more evil than the law lets you get away with
ddalex · 11h ago
it's like the publisher wants to manufacture some outrage
dal · 11h ago
They need to drive traffic to the dying bluesky thing somehow.
kotaKat · 12h ago
And remember — even if you turn off all those features in Workspace, Google will still forcibly make you pay more for the privilege.
I just got told my Workspace plan is hiking another $2 a month for “AI” features I already have turned off at an administrative level — so I guess Google gets to grope around my wallet for some extra change out of desperation.
blitzar · 11h ago
If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
If you dont like it take your business elsewhere.
xnx · 12h ago
What's the complaint? Would they rather have no choice to decline the new features?
In other contexts the same people are complaining they can't turn new AI features off.
diggan · 11h ago
The complaint is that I used to be able to see events sent via Gmail in my Google Calendar without agreeing to Google using that data for "improving the services for everyone" and sharing that data with 3rd parties.
Since today it seems that's no longer a choice.
joncrocks · 11h ago
"I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."
Remember don't be evil? Those were the days.
queenkjuul · 11h ago
Idk why this is so hard for people to get
const_cast · 3h ago
I don't either. The problem isn't that opting-out is available or not, but rather there's no granularity. You simply don't need to do 90% of this other shit in order to get feature X to work.
For example, the weather widget on Android requires Chrome to have location access. Chrome, the web browser. For... a weather widget.
Sorry, no you don't require that. That is a choice on Google's part. Number 1, why does Weather rely on Chrome? That's a choice, and a stupid one. Number 2, why do I need location at all for Weather? Why can I not manually input my City/ZIP?
latexr · 11h ago
> In other contexts the same people are complaining
How do you know it’s the same people? That type of wording insinuates this is a type of person who is a hypocrite, yet I have never once saw someone making that claim who also showed it really were the same groups making both arguments. It looks more like a way to discredit separate but tangential groups one doesn’t like by making them look like one big contradiction.
oneeyedpigeon · 11h ago
Yeah, tbf, I was delighted to turn those AI features off right away!
a0123 · 9h ago
The complaint is essentially that Gemini exists in the first place. Something that on one even needed.
pavel_lishin · 12h ago
Only the first one seems to be a pre-AI thing, right? Which is a feature I've always hated and always disabled, because the email-to-calendar automation was always wonky, and would consistently put flights on my calendar with the wrong information.
venusenvy47 · 9h ago
I was going to say the same thing. I'd be glad to disable this "feature", and this seems like an easy way to accomplish it. I'm also happy if I can get rid of that message about Gemini asking to summarize my stuff. I find it distracting and will be happy to remove it.
oneeyedpigeon · 11h ago
It had a terrible habit of propagating spam by adding it to your calendar!
Beijinger · 10h ago
Gmail is a great tool. I don't use it anymore except when required (Android). I once got locked out of my gmail account and, despite knowing the right password, never gained access to it again, including all that was attached to it (Android Apps, Software ISync etc.).
Get your own email domain.
jstummbillig · 11h ago
If you don't agree to "data processing" I would expect features to not work.
develatio · 8h ago
I’m gonna go ahead and flag this one. This rant doesn’t make any sense (as other people in the comments are pointing out)
diggan · 8h ago
Speaking about flagging things :)
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
I think once you understand the context, it does make sense and would make it clear it isn't a "rant", but I also understand that that would require to actually do some reading so easier with a knee-jerk reaction to it instead.
antisol · 12h ago
I agree that this is shitty, but my first question is "why are you using gmail in 2025 if you don't want all your data slurped?"
n1b0m · 11h ago
What are good alternatives?
Mashimo · 11h ago
Depends on what features you need :)
I use mailbox.org because I can use my own domain and they claim to focus on privacy. And it's hosted in Germany.
But I bet it's missing feature that are essential for others.
Posteo and protonmail are alternatives that friends of mine use.
antisol · 10h ago
Dovecot + postfix + spamassassin for mail.
radicale for CalDAV/CardDAV (calendar and contacts).
Squirrelmail for webmail used to be ok (though I haven't used it in a long time).
Or there's an embarrassment of riches out there if you prefer to pay someone for a nice web-based zero-management thing. I can't really recommend one, but I was reselling a whitelabel email service with pretty reasonable capacity and featureset to a bunch of businesses for $5/month/user about 5 years ago. A couple of people I know seem to like protonmail.
Some ISPs might even still provide email. Though that leads to a vendor-lock-in problem and you're better paying for something distinct from your ISP IMO. Same goes for the addresses Apple hands out "free" to their users.
The main trick is to remember the old adage: "If you're not paying for it, you are the product" - If you don't want to pay for email then you might as well just stick with google.
renegat0x0 · 9h ago
The first sentence says it all. Sounds like linux cake meme. I would try finding docker image with all email things working out of the box - if such thing exists.
Suggestion to other providers is also... something. I have been using other providers. Proton does not allow me to use IMAP on free. Other servers have much spam, which I have been able to clear with some cronjob, but also that is a poor job. Besides... how do you know that other companies are better on serving you? How can I know if they sell my data to China?
And self hosting is tough, even though it is easier than has ever been.
beAbU · 11h ago
Migadu + thunderbird.
Not the best, not great UX, but it's f'n email, it can be ugly.
n1b0m · 10h ago
Thanks all for the suggestions
bubblebeard · 11h ago
Proton
pcardoso · 11h ago
Fastmail?
diggan · 11h ago
Because I'm in the process of migrating but it's kind of low on my list of priorities.
righthand · 11h ago
So you’re fine with your data being slurped. Migrating away doesn’t take that much effort. Redirecting some dns records and setting a forward-all rule in the old email address. What am I missing?
voidUpdate · 11h ago
Changing the email address associated with all of your accounts is a nightmare. Having changed my name recently, it was easier to just make a new google account than to try and change the email on my old one
diggan · 11h ago
Hundreds of filters, tens of addresses, labels and probably other things. It's not that it's technically hard, other things are just more important.
righthand · 11h ago
Well I’m not sure which platform you’re migrating to but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some automation tool to help (if self hosting). For example, Fastmail has a quick guide for transferring (including the pieces you mention): https://www.fastmail.help/hc/en-us/articles/360058752414-Mig...
diggan · 11h ago
Migrating to a self-hosted setup. Again, not a technical/know-how problem, it's a "problem" of time/priorities :)
righthand · 11h ago
Yes I understand it’s an issue with time, that’s why I’m suggesting automation of some sort. Hence why I didn’t drop a link to Cyrus IMAP docs.
diggan · 8h ago
Thanks for the recommendation, but even with automation it requires a bunch of work, probably most it will be testing and making sure it all works, so how to automate it isn't really why I'm putting it off.
> When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research
But this seems... right? and long overdue. If they can't look at your data they can't do these things.
The way they are framing this however, yeah that is a bit shady and would likely encourage more people to allow it. Reminds me of the tactics Facebook tried with the app tracking apple did. But... still.
Now if only google could also ask for the permission of the person sending you the email that would be great, but that is a pipe dream.
Instead, they're bundling "Use the data for the functionality" and "Let Google store the data indefinitely, and use for improving any other Google service", which is the part that leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.
For reference, this is the help page the message was linking to: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15604322
Some relevant parts that many comments here seemed to have missed:
> When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research
Yes. You can process data “one time” without further access, you don’t need to use data to train an llm to do those kind of stuff.
Separately, the industry standard elsewhere appears to be that if you're a free user your data is used for training, and if you're a paying user it's not.
[1] https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US#toc-content
> Your content is not used for any other customers. Your content is not human reviewed or used for Generative AI model training outside your domain without permission.
And I think the default assumption has to be that those policies are actually followed. If you think they aren't, the burden of proof is on you to show they aren't.
The amount of times Google has been caught out doing things they shouldn't be means that no, no one has to prove that it's a reasonable assumption that Google follows policies, not even their own.
It's for you to prove that they can be trusted (good luck with that!).
That's not an accurate description. It's not "however they want", it's pretty clearly scoped for the data being used across Workspace apps.
> such a great direction to take your service
Also, none of this is new. That setting has been around to control exactly those features for years[0]. It's off by default in some countries, on by default in others, depending on the local laws/regulations.
[0] Here's the archived documentation for the setting from 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210223060113/https://support.g...
Features I used to be able to use yesterday are no longer possible to use without agreeing to that new data sharing, it seems
What's the documentation link?
Yes.
> If you've been using these features for years
I haven't agreed to any of those features explicitly, the thing with flights/reservations appearing in Google Calendar has been a feature for years and don't recall that needing an explicit agreement that Google can use that same data for improving other Google services. It wasn't until today (it seems) they asked for explicit permission for that.
> What's the documentation link?
I think it was linking to https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15604322 but can't confirm 100% since I can't see that modal anymore.
> I think it was linking to https://support.google.com/mail/answer/15604322 but can't confirm 100% since I can't see that modal anymore.
Fair. But I don't think that page is saying what you originally said it did. They're not asking for consent for using data for product improvements or sharing with third parties. Consent is the stated legal basis for using the data for providing the features. Legitimate interest is the basis for using the data for product improvements. I can see no claim about data being shared with third parties.
Ok, lets assume I did accept it (or not), then why ask again? Clearly something has changed, otherwise they'd just use my previous consent (or lack of).
> They're not asking for consent for using data for product improvements
My reading of that is that they are, some highlights you might have missed:
> > When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research
That basically says they can use the data as long as it ends up being used for a new product/feature, which can essentially be anything.
They're saying that if you use these features, they have a legal basis (legitimate interest) other than consent to use your data for product improvements.
The only thing they're asking for consent is for providing the features. Which you appear to want to use, and which genuinely can't be provided without access to the data, so where is the problem?
(I don't think it is as unbounded as you claim. They'd still be limited by their other policies, which for Workspace are quite restrictive, and by what EU DPAs would actually find reasonable to be covered by legitimate interest. It is not a free ticket to do anything you want.)
Don’t be ~~evil~~ any more evil than the law lets you get away with
I just got told my Workspace plan is hiking another $2 a month for “AI” features I already have turned off at an administrative level — so I guess Google gets to grope around my wallet for some extra change out of desperation.
If you dont like it take your business elsewhere.
In other contexts the same people are complaining they can't turn new AI features off.
Since today it seems that's no longer a choice.
Remember don't be evil? Those were the days.
For example, the weather widget on Android requires Chrome to have location access. Chrome, the web browser. For... a weather widget.
Sorry, no you don't require that. That is a choice on Google's part. Number 1, why does Weather rely on Chrome? That's a choice, and a stupid one. Number 2, why do I need location at all for Weather? Why can I not manually input my City/ZIP?
How do you know it’s the same people? That type of wording insinuates this is a type of person who is a hypocrite, yet I have never once saw someone making that claim who also showed it really were the same groups making both arguments. It looks more like a way to discredit separate but tangential groups one doesn’t like by making them look like one big contradiction.
Get your own email domain.
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
I think once you understand the context, it does make sense and would make it clear it isn't a "rant", but I also understand that that would require to actually do some reading so easier with a knee-jerk reaction to it instead.
I use mailbox.org because I can use my own domain and they claim to focus on privacy. And it's hosted in Germany.
But I bet it's missing feature that are essential for others.
Posteo and protonmail are alternatives that friends of mine use.
Or there's an embarrassment of riches out there if you prefer to pay someone for a nice web-based zero-management thing. I can't really recommend one, but I was reselling a whitelabel email service with pretty reasonable capacity and featureset to a bunch of businesses for $5/month/user about 5 years ago. A couple of people I know seem to like protonmail.
Some ISPs might even still provide email. Though that leads to a vendor-lock-in problem and you're better paying for something distinct from your ISP IMO. Same goes for the addresses Apple hands out "free" to their users.
The main trick is to remember the old adage: "If you're not paying for it, you are the product" - If you don't want to pay for email then you might as well just stick with google.
Suggestion to other providers is also... something. I have been using other providers. Proton does not allow me to use IMAP on free. Other servers have much spam, which I have been able to clear with some cronjob, but also that is a poor job. Besides... how do you know that other companies are better on serving you? How can I know if they sell my data to China?
And self hosting is tough, even though it is easier than has ever been.
Not the best, not great UX, but it's f'n email, it can be ugly.
"You agree to let Google […] use your […] content […] *TO* personalize your experience[…]" (my emphasis)
If you don't let them, then under what authority can they have this feature?
> When smart features are on, your data may be used to improve these features [...] To improve our services. If you have turned on any of the smart features settings, we may also process your Workspace Content & Activity to improve these features. [...] Developing new products and features [...] Performing research