Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Begins To Merge Google+, Gmail Contacts

samzenpus posted about 9 months ago | from the make-it-one dept.

Google 339

An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced new integration between Gmail and Google+ that sees your social connections show up in auto-complete when you're composing an email. Google says the feature is rolling out "over the next couple of days" to everyone that uses Gmail and Google+."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great.... (5, Insightful)

olsmeister (1488789) | about 9 months ago | (#45913885)

Spam City, here we come. Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.

Re:Great.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913895)

I have quite the gifted rectum. What say you about this?

Re: Great (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913999)

Is that rectum opt-in or opt-out? ...um asking for a friend.

Re: Great (5, Interesting)

Cryacin (657549) | about 9 months ago | (#45914009)

I'm just waiting for a conclusive youtube history gets linked in to your G+ display. I'm sure that won't be any cause for embarrassment amongst professional circles.

Re: Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914045)

YouTube only carries tame content. They don't allow offensive stuff.

Re: Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914113)

lol right

Re: Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914231)

Yeah, I totally forgot about that entire trove of porn, gore and racist videos on YouTube...

Re: Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914353)

Delete your account. Problem solved? wai...

That aside, what are the odds that this rolls out faster than Youtube live streaming ;)

Re: Great (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 9 months ago | (#45914399)

And I would have used any google ID for "professional" purposes???

Re:Great.... (1, Insightful)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about 9 months ago | (#45914007)

I just opted out.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914249)

Nothing on gmail to opt out that i see. yet.

as for g+... I never opted into that at all. going there prompts me to create an account.. And that is never going to happen.

Re:Great.... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914013)

Google+: Google's third failure of a social network that nobody wants but Google is going to push by forcing integration with their popular services such as YouTube and Gmail.

Sorry Google, but I've had I'm jumping ship. Microsoft looks like a saint in comparison.

Re:Great.... (3, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 9 months ago | (#45914091)

Google+: Google's third failure of a social network that nobody wants but Google is going to push by forcing integration with their popular services such as YouTube and Gmail.

This is the kind of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to stop. Unfortunately, we don't do antitrust enforcement in the U.S. any more, at least not in any meaningful sense.

Re:Great.... (3, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 9 months ago | (#45914129)

Google+: Google's third failure of a social network that nobody wants but Google is going to push by forcing integration with their popular services such as YouTube and Gmail.

This is the kind of thing that antitrust laws are supposed to stop. Unfortunately, we don't do antitrust enforcement in the U.S. any more, at least not in any meaningful sense.

I don't like Google integrating its other -- more useful or popular -- services like YouTube GMail with Google+, but where's the antitrust angle to that?

Re:Great.... (2)

queazocotal (915608) | about 9 months ago | (#45914147)

If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.

G+ is not market dominant... (3, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | about 9 months ago | (#45914259)

If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.

G+ is not market dominant... even among Google employees.

Re:G+ is not market dominant... (5, Funny)

aliquis (678370) | about 9 months ago | (#45914347)

What Google needs to bring to the market is Google porn.

That would be an instant success!

Re:G+ is not market dominant... (4, Informative)

Gumbercules!! (1158841) | about 9 months ago | (#45914357)

They already have - but they just called it Google.

Re:Great.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914155)

"bundlin". using your market power in one category to push unpopular products in other categories by bundling, is the antitrust angle.

Re:Great.... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 9 months ago | (#45914199)

Are they dominant in the markets of google+ or gmail?

Re:Great.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914221)

Obviously, since Google is the only company providing Google+ and Gmail.

Your pedantry aside, they are dominant in the areas of email and video sharing which are the places they are forcing Google+ integration.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914255)

They are dominant in webmail with gmail and certainly in video streaming with youtube.

Re:Great.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914197)

It is no different when people made a stink over Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.

Wrong (2, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | about 9 months ago | (#45914251)

It is no different when people made a stink over Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.

Wrong

They do not wield monopolistic power in the marketplace, and they are not leveraging monopolistic power (which they don't have) to obtain a monopoly in another market.

This is very different from Microsoft, which leveraged it's desktop monopoly in order to try to obtain a browser monopoly, and was convicted of same in a Federal Court.

Re:Wrong (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914267)

You are fucking blind or just a shill if you think forced integration with Google Mail and YouTube isn't leveraging monopolistic power. It is exactly the same thing, perhaps even worse.

Thanks for your uninformed opinion anyways.

Re:Wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914279)

go back to your room you autistic fuck

Re:Great.... (0)

aliquis (678370) | about 9 months ago | (#45914359)

EU would never say no to a few extra billions to sprinkle over Greece and French farmers so they can remain uncompetitive though.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914189)

It's not for you or me, it's for Google's info spiders to creep more of your life and figure out your connections. Mine that data, G+/ So for its intended purpose it's not really a failure at all. Only for those who think it's FB or other similar shit.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914207)

Google+ had already failed, just like Buzz and Wave before it. The only reason they have users now is because they took away the ability to do such trivial things as comment on YouTube without a G+ account.

I don't use Facebook either, so there is no way I could compare the two.

Re:Great.... (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about 9 months ago | (#45914361)

No, G+ is fine. Better than FB, in fact. I don't trust Google really, anymore than I trust Facebook, and its network effect is much smaller. But those are different matters.

Re:Great.... (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about 9 months ago | (#45914381)

But that's the problem. G+ is just fine. Even if it's better than Facebook (look the same to me) then it's not better by a much. Not better enough for others to switch. Why would you switch, if they are pretty much freaking clones.

And shoving G+ down users throats is causing gag reflex, so sad to see company that used to win users by being the best in the field (GMail, Search, YouTube) is down to such cheap promotion methods.

I kind of like G+ at first, but when all this nonsence started with killing off GTalk and replacing it with Hangouts (super-tightly tied into G+), then even stock Gallery on Android is biting the dust, being replaced by G+ Photos (Picasa was shot in the head much earlier). I came to pretty much hate G+, because Google does everything so force me there, sacrificing good projects so this DOA project can sustain some kind of existence.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914383)

Yes, it's fine *now*, after they forced every one on YouTube to create accounts. It's an artificially obtained user base and most people still don't use or like G+, they just have accounts so they can post comments and videos on YT.

Re:Great.... (4, Informative)

number17 (952777) | about 9 months ago | (#45914023)

I looked at the pictures in the article and you can disable emails coming from Google+. Its under General settings tab in Gmail.

It doesn't look like I can send emails to Google+ people quite yet.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914163)

For now, Google has a history of "pulling" unpopular (read: hidden) settings and features later on. By design, they'll use the excuse that nobody uses a setting to get rid of it.

Re:Great.... (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 9 months ago | (#45914125)

Spam City, here we come. Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.

Yeah that and hardly anyone tends to "opt" when allowed. Why would a company bother to release a feature and make it opt in?

Re:Great.... (4, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | about 9 months ago | (#45914219)

Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.

Oh, wait, you're talking about Google. For a second there, I thought you were talking about Slashdot Beta.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914427)

On a related note: why the flying crap is my Chrome installation automatically redirected to the beta site since a couple of days, even if I choose "Slashdot Classic" in the bottom menu? I can't seem to even opt-out of the horrible, horrible, horrible interface that is "Slashdot Beta" in Chrome. It only seems to happen on tech.slashdot.org yet, though, not the other subdomains (of the ones I've tested: hardware, science, entertainment, developers, yro, apple). In Opera it works as before, i.e. an explicit link to Slashdot Classic gives me Slashdot Classic, even on the tech subdomain.

The beta doesn't even support hiding comments below thresholds, so apart from being a massively inefficient interface to begin with which can't even use a reasonable fraction of a laptop screen, all I see is comments about "rectums" and such. Magnificent. Trollers: keep it up.

There have been many "oh my god, this will kill Slashdot" outcrys over the years, but this will actually kill Slashdot.

Stop touching my stuff! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914235)

I like my electronic services to be nice little seperate compartments...
So i can DUMP any of them that get stupid. I really don't want any of my stuff linked together.

Re:Great.... (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 9 months ago | (#45914263)

Spam City, here we come.

Do you circle a lot of people who will spam you?

Re:Great.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914327)

Spam City, here we come. Why is this opt-out instead of opt-in? Because nobody would want it.

I'd say you opted-In when you went out and setup a Google+ account and linked it to your Gmail account.

Now, Your Journey to the Dark Side is Complete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913897)

nt

Thanks Google. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913899)

+1

sounds evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913901)

dont use "see-what-cute-thing-my-cat-did networking" but integration of email contacts with social networking platform contacts, where either party of the latter may not know the other's email address (on that email service) sounds pretty bad. and i could see it being abused by fake or hacked google+ accounts to obtain a target's verified gmail address.

All your base belong to us. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913911)

Yes I'm that old.

Re:All your base belong to us. (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about 9 months ago | (#45913943)

whoa.. that makes us old now? I still thought that made us cool.

Re:All your base belong to us. (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 9 months ago | (#45914015)

All your A-Frames are belong to us.

Re:All your base belong to us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913959)

All your base are belong to us.

Re:All your base belong to us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914035)

Old? That meme only happened in the early 2000s and the version of the game that it came from was released in 1991. If you think that makes you old, then you're probably still just a kid.

Re:All your base belong to us. (2)

TWX (665546) | about 9 months ago | (#45914127)

Old? That meme only happened in the early 2000s and the version of the game that it came from was released in 1991. If you think that makes you old, then you're probably still just a kid.

Oh yeah? Well, a grue eats your face!

Re:All your base belong to us. (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 9 months ago | (#45914225)

What, with your bare hands?

  -- XYZZY

Re:All your base belong to us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914185)

You're so old that you forgot "are" due to your senility?

bad bad idea (2, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 9 months ago | (#45913927)

When will they force everyone using any google service to use G+?

What about all these people that have problems having G+? This could well be the real beginning of the end

Re:bad bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913951)

When will they force everyone using any google service to use G+?

What about all these people that have problems having G+? This could well be the real beginning of the end

I'll complain when they start forcing video ads on me. Until then, mine away, google. Mine away.

Re:bad bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914137)

I have Adblock Plus. What video ads?

Re:bad bad idea (5, Informative)

MacTO (1161105) | about 9 months ago | (#45913969)

You aren't actually forced to use G+, even if it is enabled on your account. Realistically, Google won't be able to force you to use G+ either since that would break interoperability with other email providers.

As for the privacy concerns associated with G+, they should exist whether or not these are independent services. It is the same company collecting your data after all.

Re:bad bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913991)

That must be why I can comment on youtube, while logged into gmail and having a youtube account, withou,.... oh wait. I can't.

Re:bad bad idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914165)

if they create a public G+ "home page" for you, you are being forced to participate.

if you don't want a G+ home page because it advertises you, that's a privacy issue.

wtf, be more imaginative than you are, privacy doesn't just mean keeping secrets from google, and participation doesn't mean posting things to your g-wall.

Re:bad bad idea (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 9 months ago | (#45914191)

You aren't actually forced to use G+

Most Slashdotters aren't actually forced to do much of anything, but that doesn't stop them from bitching about just about everything.

Google, when will it end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913935)

Google+ is a failure. You know it. We know it. Please stop being Microsoft. Even they (sometimes) know when to quit.

this case may trun out bad for google (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#45913985)

Re:this case may trun out bad for google (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 9 months ago | (#45914055)

Wow, what a messy story there for our friend Thomas. Apparently he asked the girl to marry him, then she said no and turned around and slapped a restraining order on the guy. Have a look at what I found in google cache on urban dictionary:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VeXEw3P932QJ:www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3DThomas%2520Gagnon+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz [googleusercontent.com]

1. Thomas Gagnon A lying cheating boy who has no selfworth. He makes you fall for him and then rips everything out from under you. Be careful when near him. May occasionally act immature and like a girl. WARNING: He will say he loves you but is just saying that to get into your pants. Avoid at all costs. Thomas Gagnon has small man parts...mark as favorite buy thomas gagnon mugs & shirts cheater lying immature egotistical rude by love,exgirlfriend :) December 15, 2010 add a video

When it's said google knows all, it really means it.
Don't know what this guy did, but it seems as though this woman is using a restraining order as a tool for revenge rather than to prevent violence. If this is true, for shame!

Re:this case may trun out bad for google (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 9 months ago | (#45914247)

I think Google+ would have been fine, except for Sergey's insistence upon people using their real names, instead of being able to keep their nicknames. That made it no fun any more, and that's why I closed my profile down & avoided it from then on.

Truth is, I don't want people to know I'm actually a Staffordshire Terrier. People can be so prejudiced against dogs on the internet.

Re:this case may trun out bad for google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914213)

i sure hope that guy doesn't use linkedin or classmates, otherwise he could be in big huge types of trouble from all the spam invites those buttholes send out.

Re:Google, when will it end? (2)

Luca Masters (3463655) | about 9 months ago | (#45914019)

I don't know. I use it for commenting on YouTube and will soon be using it for my Google Contacts (Gmail and Voice) as well.

Yeah, Google+ isn't replacing Facebook. But it's working as a way of consolidating overlapping aspects of their various services. If you don't want to go post to your feed, that's fine.

Re:Google, when will it end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914105)

In other words, you bent over and took it.

Google becomes more like facebook everyday (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45913983)

This is why I still have an outlook account

Easy enough to disable (5, Insightful)

barlevg (2111272) | about 9 months ago | (#45913995)

Though the obvious response is, "for now."

Whatever (2, Interesting)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | about 9 months ago | (#45913997)

That's great Google. Keep trying to make google+ a thing. That's great.
Can't say I'm happy about how that worked out for youtube but keep trying. You never know.
I don't care that much anyway. I switched my gmail account to be my spam account a while ago and only check it via outlook any so whatever. Good luck though.

Re:Whatever (1)

GNious (953874) | about 9 months ago | (#45914343)

G+ is a thing - might not be to you, but it is a thing.

Re:Whatever (0)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about 9 months ago | (#45914393)

It's a thing that will suck up all of the good google's services to fail miserably, as userbase that is OK with G+ is much smaller that YouTube's and GMail's userbase. And we've already got one facebook, who needs another one, google flavour? It's development is dead in the water after the launch.

Google is fucking Skynet (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914017)

Seriously. It is coming and it will be bad.

Re:Google is fucking Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914151)

How is this modded down? This is a fact in the making. This company is not a benign entity. What's wrong with all you rampant capitalists? Corporate overreach is exceedingly dangerous. Big comapnies have the money to buy votes, subvert and pervert democracy as we know it. Big new companies might as well be the surveillance apparatus.

Re:Google is fucking Skynet (1)

bigfinger76 (2923613) | about 9 months ago | (#45914287)

An interesting enough point, I agree, but I don't see the need for profanity.

Re:Google is fucking Skynet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914403)

For fuck's sake, it's just a word. What are you, a child?

What's with all the consolodation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914021)

Now this with Google, Ubuntu and Unity interface across desktop and mobile, Apple slowly fusing iOS and OS X, Microsoft fusing the Metro interface. Everyone seems to be consolodating. Why? I don't reckon punters really want all this. Have the boffins gone mad?

Google..... why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914037)

Why Google, didn't you piss enough people off when you merged Youtube with Google+ then chased off a considerable portion of your Youtube customers with run-away copyright claims? Why do you persist in forcing onto many of your customers a social networking service that they do not want, and turning your services into things we never asked for?

Google+ is supremely annoying (5, Interesting)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 9 months ago | (#45914047)

We run a small condo, 12 units. A few years ago we created a gmail account for the condo administration to communicate with the residents. We used the condo association's legal name as registered with the government. Recently I had to go through the whole "upgrade the account to google+ and you can't opt out" rigamarole. I sent the registration form to google's anonymous and unreachable (except through the one-way web form) to be told the name doesn't meet Google guidelines because they want people to be able to find us.

Guess what? It's a condo. It only concerns the 12 people who live here. No one else cares about who cleans our carpets and who's complaining about the squeaking hinges on the door over at #201.

It's so stupid. I downloaded all the documents in the drive but Google doesn't handle french accents too well in file names, AND it creates a flat zip... We lost the whole tree. Oh well, I'll manually re-create it when I migrate over to Yahoo groups.

You can say what you want about Yahoo, they don't annoy you at the same level as Google.

Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914131)

A few years ago we created a gmail account for the condo administration to communicate with the residents....Recently I had to go through the whole "upgrade the account to google+ and you can't opt out" rigamarole.

I have a gmail account and I don't recall anytime that I was required to upgrade to google+. Sure, I have had the occasional "friendly reminders" that I need to update my contact information or I could permanently lose access to my account if I forget my password, but other than that no troubles. What the hell did you do to piss them off so much?

Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (3, Informative)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about 9 months ago | (#45914229)

Who knows? Like I said, Google was forcing me to upgrade to Google+ and it was complaining that the name didn't live up to their exalted standards. They said they wanted other people to be able to contact us. If we were a business, we should create a google+ page. Guess what? As a condo admin, I'm not paid, and I'm not interested in creating a google+ page. Furthermore, a condo board in Quebec is not a business so why should I care?

The main problem Google seems to have is with the name. It's a long sequence of letters and numbers at gmail.com.

We don't want other people to find us. We don't want to find other people.

We are not going to help Google+'s bogus social networking numbers simply because like I said we're boring. Just let us keep our name...

The pop-up I get is in French but it boils down to that the name "doesn't sound" like a name and we must change it. Even though I sent the document showing that it's the name registered with the government, it's not good enough for Google??

Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914341)

Google doesn't care about YOU. They care about what business you can drive to them. That's why they want you to follow their own will in this matter. If you ever thought it would be any different, given that theirs is a "free" service, then I'm afraid you're the one whose time was wasted here, not Google's.

I think you're bang on about moving away from Google, but moving to Yahoo isn't really going to help you in the longer run, because either Yahoo will die and be taken over by jerks, or they'll become jerks themselves just like Google did. Still, as long as you have tools there to export and move away, you'll at least buy yourself some time.

Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914355)

Outrage! Man, you might have to use a different "free" e-mail service provider, now.

Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (1)

Urkki (668283) | about 9 months ago | (#45914339)

You should ask yourself, why would Google want your business, when your use case is what it is, and when you have the requirements you have?

Perhaps you should pay them. Of course with your experience, you're not likely to, but you were not likely to before, either. Lost or badly handled sales opportunity for them, I suppose.

Re:Google+ is supremely annoying (1)

Bazouel (105242) | about 9 months ago | (#45914435)

Your use case better fits Google Apps, which we use for exactly the same purpose as you without a hitch. We registered our domain when GApps was still free, but alas, now it would cost you a bit per user (you can register only one user and use people's private email addresses in a mailing list).

Google: Facebook wannabe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914103)

Because $50E+9/y revenue just doesn't cut it.

Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914123)

I really don't mind... because I hardly ever use either G+ and Gmail anyway!

Re:Who cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914285)

I really don't mind... because I hardly ever use either G+ and Gmail anyway!

And you probably also don't care about genocides in Africa...because you don't live there so it doesn't affect YOU! 'Cause everything is always all about YOU! And you don't care about the millions who can't get medical care right here in the US, because you're not one of them, and it's all about YOU! And you wouldn't care if the US nuked an entire country, as long as you don't live there, because it's all about YOU! YOU, YOU, YOU!

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914311)

I really don't mind... because I hardly ever use either G+ and Gmail anyway!

And you probably also don't care about genocides in Africa...because you don't live there so it doesn't affect YOU! 'Cause everything is always all about YOU! And you don't care about the millions who can't get medical care right here in the US, because you're not one of them, and it's all about YOU! And you wouldn't care if the US nuked an entire country, as long as you don't live there, because it's all about YOU! YOU, YOU, YOU!

I'm not seeing a problem here...

What's next, Google opening our inboxes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914145)

srsly this merging and changes are growing very, very old.

The change to YouTube comments is just one change which pissed me off.

Why can't companies just leave well enough alone? If it's not broke ...

Given the entire mess with Google and G+... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914149)

...I've just moved over to Yandex and given Google the finger.

I'm about to give up on Gmail... (-1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 9 months ago | (#45914175)

I'm about to just go back to using the family domain I have with a no-frills shared hosting account and set up my own IMAP mailbox via Cpanel again.

Re:I'm about to give up on Gmail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914215)

Agreed, all of google's "upgrades" have been absolute garbage lately.

Question: Do Google Apps for Business (with custom gmail for your domain) withhold all this crap or do those users get the pleasure of this too despite being paid for (and not cheap either, per user, per month).

Re:I'm about to give up on Gmail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914295)

I'm about to just go back to using the family domain I have with a no-frills shared hosting account and set up my own IMAP mailbox via Cpanel again.

I never left that setup. It's far better than throwing all your mail into Google's (or Yahoo's, or anyone else's) whim factory.

Re:I'm about to give up on Gmail... (3, Insightful)

xeno (2667) | about 9 months ago | (#45914367)

This.

I have my own domain and a small rack in the basement, with mail I haven't used much in a while.. but this G+ stupidity might just roust me out of my slumber. I've stayed with Gmail out of inertia mostly; the handy features just barely outweigh the irritation. But it's really, really close. The Gmail interface changes from a year ago still suck. Badly. Google+ is an irritating solution to a problem I don't have, and becoming terribly intrusive. Youtube integration is actively conterproductive, a constant intrusion of personal browsing into potential business activity. When I log into gmail and open up a youtube tab, it constatntly pops up a link to some warplane videos I watched a year ago. So... I can't browse youtube because if I use gmail to communicate with clients for moonlighting gigs, because those who use g+ might see that and think I'm a nut? No thanks.)

Gmail is a handy web interface to email functions I had thru IMAP a decade ago, nothing more. I could easily switch back. Better yet, I could update the whole mess and run it in a couple of VMs at AWS for pennies a day.

I hesitate because Google docs is handy for helping my kids on their school reports, annotating, correcting, making suggestions as they work on it.. but really it's a nice-to-have. I would miss it, but if the price for docs is forced use of Google+, it's not worth the hassle.

I only want to use GMail. Don't want Google+ (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914253)

Just give me GMail.

Why is it so hard for Google to give me something I want and not something that I don't want?

Or is this part of Google's plans to increase their Google+ numbers by forcing everyone with GMail to become part of Google+?

Give it a break Google.

You were cool.

But now you're becoming annoying.

Burglars Who Took On F.B.I. Abandon Shadows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914291)

http://web.archive.org/web/20140109031337/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/burglars-who-took-on-fbi-abandon-shadows.html [archive.org]

Burglars Who Took On F.B.I. Abandon Shadows

By MARK MAZZETTIJAN. 7, 2014

PHILADELPHIA â" The perfect crime is far easier to pull off when nobody is watching.

So on a night nearly 43 years ago, while Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier bludgeoned each other over 15 rounds in a televised title bout viewed by millions around the world, burglars took a lock pick and a crowbar and broke into a Federal Bureau of Investigation office in a suburb of Philadelphia, making off with nearly every document inside.

They were never caught, and the stolen documents that they mailed anonymously to newspaper reporters were the first trickle of what would become a flood of revelations about extensive spying and dirty-tricks operations by the F.B.I. against dissident groups.

The burglary in Media, Pa., on March 8, 1971, is a historical echo today, as disclosures by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden have cast another unflattering light on government spying and opened a national debate about the proper limits of government surveillance. The burglars had, until now, maintained a vow of silence about their roles in the operation. They were content in knowing that their actions had dealt the first significant blow to an institution that had amassed enormous power and prestige during J. Edgar Hooverâ(TM)s lengthy tenure as director.

âoeWhen you talked to people outside the movement about what the F.B.I. was doing, nobody wanted to believe it,â said one of the burglars, Keith Forsyth, who is finally going public about his involvement. âoeThere was only one way to convince people that it was true, and that was to get it in their handwriting.â

Mr. Forsyth, now 63, and other members of the group can no longer be prosecuted for what happened that night, and they agreed to be interviewed before the release this week of a book written by one of the first journalists to receive the stolen documents. The author, Betty Medsger, a former reporter for The Washington Post, spent years sifting through the F.B.I.â(TM)s voluminous case file on the episode and persuaded five of the eight men and women who participated in the break-in to end their silence.

Unlike Mr. Snowden, who downloaded hundreds of thousands of digital N.S.A. files onto computer hard drives, the Media burglars did their work the 20th-century way: they cased the F.B.I. office for months, wore gloves as they packed the papers into suitcases, and loaded the suitcases into getaway cars. When the operation was over, they dispersed. Some remained committed to antiwar causes, while others, like John and Bonnie Raines, decided that the risky burglary would be their final act of protest against the Vietnam War and other government actions before they moved on with their lives.

âoeWe didnâ(TM)t need attention, because we had done what needed to be done,â said Mr. Raines, 80, who had, with his wife, arranged for family members to raise the coupleâ(TM)s three children if they were sent to prison. âoeThe â(TM)60s were over. We didnâ(TM)t have to hold on to what we did back then.â

A Meticulous Plan

The burglary was the idea of William C. Davidon, a professor of physics at Haverford College and a fixture of antiwar protests in Philadelphia, a city that by the early 1970s had become a white-hot center of the peace movement. Mr. Davidon was frustrated that years of organized demonstrations seemed to have had little impact.

In the summer of 1970, months after President Richard M. Nixon announced the United Statesâ(TM) invasion of Cambodia, Mr. Davidon began assembling a team from a group of activists whose commitment and discretion he had come to trust.

The group â" originally nine, before one member dropped out â" concluded that it would be too risky to try to break into the F.B.I. office in downtown Philadelphia, where security was tight. They soon settled on the bureauâ(TM)s satellite office in Media, in an apartment building across the street from the county courthouse.

That decision carried its own risks: Nobody could be certain whether the satellite office would have any documents about the F.B.I.â(TM)s surveillance of war protesters, or whether a security alarm would trip as soon as the burglars opened the door.

The group spent months casing the building, driving past it at all times of the night and memorizing the routines of its residents.

âoeWe knew when people came home from work, when their lights went out, when they went to bed, when they woke up in the morning,â said Mr. Raines, who was a professor of religion at Temple University at the time. âoeWe were quite certain that we understood the nightly activities in and around that building.â

But it wasnâ(TM)t until Ms. Raines got inside the office that the group grew confident that it did not have a security system. Weeks before the burglary, she visited the office posing as a Swarthmore College student researching job opportunities for women at the F.B.I.

The burglary itself went off largely without a hitch, except for when Mr. Forsyth, the designated lock-picker, had to break into a different entrance than planned when he discovered that the F.B.I. had installed a lock on the main door that he could not pick. He used a crowbar to break the second lock, a deadbolt above the doorknob.

After packing the documents into suitcases, the burglars piled into getaway cars and rendezvoused at a farmhouse to sort through what they had stolen. To their relief, they soon discovered that the bulk of it was hard evidence of the F.B.I.â(TM)s spying on political groups. Identifying themselves as the Citizensâ(TM) Commission to Investigate the F.B.I., the burglars sent select documents to several newspaper reporters. Two weeks after the burglary, Ms. Medsger wrote the first article based on the files, after the Nixon administration tried unsuccessfully to get The Post to return the documents.

Other news organizations that had received the documents, including The New York Times, followed with their own reports.

Ms. Medsgerâ(TM)s article cited what was perhaps the most damning document from the cache, a 1970 memorandum that offered a glimpse into Hooverâ(TM)s obsession with snuffing out dissent. The document urged agents to step up their interviews of antiwar activists and members of dissident student groups.

âoeIt will enhance the paranoia endemic in these circles and will further serve to get the point across there is an F.B.I. agent behind every mailbox,â the message from F.B.I. headquarters said. Another document, signed by Hoover himself, revealed widespread F.B.I. surveillance of black student groups on college campuses.

But the document that would have the biggest impact on reining in the F.B.I.â(TM)s domestic spying activities was an internal routing slip, dated 1968, bearing a mysterious word: Cointelpro.

Neither the Media burglars nor the reporters who received the documents understood the meaning of the term, and it was not until several years later, when the NBC News reporter Carl Stern obtained more files from the F.B.I. under the Freedom of Information Act, that the contours of Cointelpro â" shorthand for Counterintelligence Program â" were revealed.

Since 1956, the F.B.I. had carried out an expansive campaign to spy on civil rights leaders, political organizers and suspected Communists, and had tried to sow distrust among protest groups. Among the grim litany of revelations was a blackmail letter F.B.I. agents had sent anonymously to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., threatening to expose his extramarital affairs if he did not commit suicide.

âoeIt wasnâ(TM)t just spying on Americans,â said Loch K. Johnson, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Georgia who was an aide to Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho. âoeThe intent of Cointelpro was to destroy lives and ruin reputations.â

Senator Churchâ(TM)s investigation in the mid-1970s revealed still more about the extent of decades of F.B.I. abuses, and led to greater congressional oversight of the F.B.I. and other American intelligence agencies. The Church Committeeâ(TM)s final report about the domestic surveillance was blunt. âoeToo many people have been spied upon by too many government agencies, and too much information has been collected,â it read.

By the time the committee released its report, Hoover was dead and the empire he had built at the F.B.I. was being steadily dismantled. The roughly 200 agents he had assigned to investigate the Media burglary came back empty-handed, and the F.B.I. closed the case on March 11, 1976 â" three days after the statute of limitations for burglary charges had expired.

Michael P. Kortan, a spokesman for the F.B.I., said that âoea number of events during that era, including the Media burglary, contributed to changes to how the F.B.I. identified and addressed domestic security threats, leading to reform of the F.B.I.â(TM)s intelligence policies and practices and the creation of investigative guidelines by the Department of Justice.â

According to Ms. Medsgerâ(TM)s book, âoeThe Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hooverâ(TM)s Secret F.B.I.,â only one of the burglars was on the F.B.I.â(TM)s final list of possible suspects before the case was closed.

A Retreat Into Silence

The eight burglars rarely spoke to one another while the F.B.I. investigation was proceeding and never again met as a group.

Mr. Davidon died late last year from complications of Parkinsonâ(TM)s disease. He had planned to speak publicly about his role in the break-in, but three of the burglars have chosen to remain anonymous.

Among those who have come forward â" Mr. Forsyth, the Raineses and a man named Bob Williamson â" there is some wariness of how their decision will be viewed.

The passage of years has worn some of the edges off the once radical political views of John and Bonnie Raines. But they said they felt a kinship toward Mr. Snowden, whose revelations about N.S.A. spying they see as a bookend to their own disclosures so long ago.

They know some people will criticize them for having taken part in something that, if they had been caught and convicted, might have separated them from their children for years. But they insist they would never have joined the team of burglars had they not been convinced they would get away with it.

âoeIt looks like weâ(TM)re terribly reckless people,â Mr. Raines said. âoeBut there was absolutely no one in Washington â" senators, congressmen, even the president â" who dared hold J. Edgar Hoover to accountability.â

âoeIt became pretty obvious to us,â he said, âoethat if we donâ(TM)t do it, nobody will.â

_______________

A version of this article appears in print on January 7, 2014, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Burglars Who Took On F.B.I. Abandon Shadows.

_______________

The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 specifies certain circumstances where all or a substantial part of a copyright work may be used without the copyright owner's permission. A "fair dealing" with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes: research or private study; criticism or review; or reporting current events.

Gmail & Contacts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914301)

Worst thing thus far is that my default email address for some friends (that I email often) has defaulted to the G+ address. When I compose a message to my friend Jim, instead of showing the email address I expect, I get whatever address he entered in G+. Spent an hour trying to disconnect my Gmail contact info from his G+ contact info...lots of complaints, but no solution. More obfuscation by Google. Like Facebook, they make it hard to control your privacy and preferences.

Google + is still around? (-1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 9 months ago | (#45914323)

Right after this I expect an update about Orkut or Friendster.

Do it yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914405)

I sure am glad I put hmailserver on aws. My gmail account hasn't been checked for a couple of years.

*ALL* of my gmail accounts? (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 9 months ago | (#45914407)

Wow, all of my gmail accounts are going to be linked to my (non-existent) g+ account? This could be fun.

Google Is Fucked In The Head (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45914437)

I have NOTHING to do with Google OR GMail. I know friends who have GMail accounts, but that does not imply that they use it for social purposes and linking someone's GMail contacts violates any contact who has FUCKING NOTHING TO do with g00gLE. I will sue this spying fucking company

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?