I have a close female friend that does not have a computer nor use the internet. A while back I told her that everyone's information is available on the internet. She doubted me, so I goggled her name and sound her name, present and former, addresses, her relatives, etc. For a " fee " I could also get additional information ( phone numbers, work history, etc. ) from lots of different companies. Selling personal information is a thriving business. That is how goggle became so very rich! That is why I will never use their internet browser nor any os that features it!

all that data is why my FB page and G+ page have DIFFERENT "day of birth" and different ages and different locations and different likes

and every forum i am on has DIFFERENT information

i may or might not be the "john van vliet" that has a book on "fly fishing"
or the one that worked for "Industrial Light and Magic " and is in the Star wars credits

Yes, it is shocking how much information people can accumulate about you. (And, just how much of it is utterly wrong. Credit-reports perhaps being the very worst.)

Nonetheless, what I am specifically talking about here is eavesdropping. If I pick up the telephone, it's not supposed to be a party-line. (There are laws on the books against that...) If I send a letter in the mail, the envelope's not supposed to be steamed-open. In the same manner, if I send someone e-mail, it's not supposed to be analyzed and chopped-up and sold for a profit.

It is, of course, a very old legal principle, and a good one: That's the way people think. That's the way they write, not only their laws, but their Constitutions, which are intended to regulate the scope-and-bounds of all laws enacted underneath them.

In general, if I did not intend a particular use, did not anticipate it, and did not expressly give consent to that use, then that use should be illegal. You have to ask me first ... and I mean, "really" ask me. Or, you have to ask a court ... a "real" one, not a self-serving secret "kangaroo." A court that just might say, "no." (And I have the right to know that you asked.)

And so, I think that the "big data" industries that have cropped-up are on very, very thin ice. People actually haven't changed their fundamental attitudes, and, even though they've been very permissive and more than a little bit naïve, that realization is very-rapidly "coming home to roost." (And that bird is going to all over the place.)

There are a lot of things going-on right now that are wishing to be "accepted (new) standards," "that's just the way it is now," etc., that I think simply are not going to be "so," and it would behoove both companies and the people who seek sustainable employment with them to keep such things in mind.

If you've ever watched a gigantic school of fish change-course instantly, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

I wonder how this happens. Searching for myself and wading though the name-alikes, all I can get is links to old journal articles of mine: it's nice to know I'm read in Poland! I certainly couldn't find my address.

When I googled my name, I found, amongst others: a convicted murderer, a baseball player, a film director, and a boxing trainer. Quite a few LinkedIn and FaceBook profiles, too.

Now, if you go to an interview and the interviewer looks you up ... how will they know it's you ? You'd have to tell them where you live and other info, otherwise they might incorrectly think you are someone who you are not.

In my youth I became friends with a vegetarian woman who made me aware of a few things the brief time we knew each other. About a year ago she goggled her name and found a birthday post to her that I had posted upon my blog and she got in touch with me again in our old age. In the USA records are kept everywhere about everyone.

Think I'd rather be mistaken for a murderer than a baseball player. It looks as boring as cricket.

Nothing could be as boring as cricket...

If it is clearly mentioned in their ToS what they will do with your data then it is not spying. Other than that, I agree with that statement, it is openly available information what they do with your data and you even have to agree with it when signing up to one of their services, so why being surprised that they actually do what they tell you they will do with your data?

Doesn't make much sense.

Yes, you have. Exactly in that moment when you stated that you have read the ToS and agreed to them. If you don't read them, but blindly agree you can hardly blame Google for that.

The alternative to saying that "you agreed to it because it is in the contract" is that the rest of us are enslaved to the ignorant and petulant who refuse to read the contract, refuse to inform themselves, and insist on the results of their ignorance. Also, given that the person refusing to read the contract is doubtless NOT offering his own counterproposal, you ask that the rest of us now read the minds of the ignorant as well. Not a workable solution.

The whole point of contracts is that it allows a third person to say "this is what the agreement is" in an objective manner. Rewarding ignorance and non-communication is not sustainable.

I think the bigger problem is that most contracts are specifically designed to be very long, confusing, and totally unreadable to the layman. You'd have to pay a lawyer to be able to fully understand your typical contract.

I'll be quite honest with you, I skim contracts for anything obvious (not usually useful, because they like to bury important details that the consumer won't like). If it is something of great importance, I'll hire a lawyer to help me understand exactly what it means.

I guess if you live in society sooner or later you will be under their(Big Brother, Little Sister, Middle parents etc.) radar regardless how you feel about it. Society keeps track on all of us. Just see internet for example - everything we wrote is stored in archive.
Only if the so called contract was properly introduced(kinda like in Matrix with pills scene) with option to choose with time to think about without negative and with working alternatives and without manipulations to choose specific choices etc. Otherwise it is forced contract and then it is no longer fair play.

Might I ask exactly how you are paying Google for this email service you're using? Because if you're not paying you have no rights as a consumer for starters.
Personally I pay for my email and if I find the company I pay for it are spamming me after reading it (automatically or otherwise) I'll stop using them, report them to Trading Standards and have their name all over the IT in the hopes their business is halved -- as it is more likely to be as other paying customers won't want to pay for spying either. Then I'll pay another company, as will others.
While you're not paying your email provider I don't see how you think you have any moral or legal right to expect anything from them and I don't see what leverage you think you have over them to change their ways?