Google filing says Gmail users have no expectation of privacy(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Google filing says Gmail users have no expectation of privacy
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57598420-93/google-filing-says-gmail-users-have-no-expectation-of-privacy/
6 comments
> 1. Machines scanning your email doesn't violate privacy
Depends what the machine or the operator is doing with the result of that scan.
> 2. Even if it did, you consent to it when you sign up for a Gmail account
Gmail users consent to scan from Gmail but if google holds in court that consent is implied to the automated processing of emails then someone might think this content extends to any machine touching the mail on its trip to the recipient. Which is not the same as "scanning mail content to get useful keywords for better ads".
I wonder if google is allowed to scan mails it has received but the user hasn't yet opened. It means google has access to the user's pen buddy mail without that pen buddy's consent. I agree consent from the user is given when he reads any mail that include or not his correspondent text But that correspondent might be using another mail provider and my point is that he hasn't given explicit consent to google to scan its mail... the one allowing that is the gmail user.
What happens if I say to my correspondent "don't share this" and he opens the mail. Has he betrayed me by sharing that mail with google ? If google has indexed that mail content before I (the gmail user) had a chance to read it... did google violate my correspondent's privacy ?
Is sending an email to a gmail address an implied consent to have mail read and indexed for ad targeting ? Excluding necessary and really automated non-profit machine analysis such as white listing, anti-spam, virus, domain verification, stp check, etc.
Automated processing (for making sure it's delivered) of emails certainly doesn't imply scanning content to build a social graph and an ad profile.
Depends what the machine or the operator is doing with the result of that scan.
> 2. Even if it did, you consent to it when you sign up for a Gmail account
Gmail users consent to scan from Gmail but if google holds in court that consent is implied to the automated processing of emails then someone might think this content extends to any machine touching the mail on its trip to the recipient. Which is not the same as "scanning mail content to get useful keywords for better ads".
I wonder if google is allowed to scan mails it has received but the user hasn't yet opened. It means google has access to the user's pen buddy mail without that pen buddy's consent. I agree consent from the user is given when he reads any mail that include or not his correspondent text But that correspondent might be using another mail provider and my point is that he hasn't given explicit consent to google to scan its mail... the one allowing that is the gmail user.
What happens if I say to my correspondent "don't share this" and he opens the mail. Has he betrayed me by sharing that mail with google ? If google has indexed that mail content before I (the gmail user) had a chance to read it... did google violate my correspondent's privacy ?
Is sending an email to a gmail address an implied consent to have mail read and indexed for ad targeting ? Excluding necessary and really automated non-profit machine analysis such as white listing, anti-spam, virus, domain verification, stp check, etc.
Automated processing (for making sure it's delivered) of emails certainly doesn't imply scanning content to build a social graph and an ad profile.
> I wonder if google is allowed to scan mails it has received but the user hasn't yet opened
Well, this is how anti spam filter works
Well, this is how anti spam filter works
For spam, yes. But does it implicitly allow Google to scan for building a user profile of a gmail user ? And of a sender from a different service ?
Why would google be allowed to build a johnchristopher@fastmail ad profile based on the mail sent to my gmail correspondents ?
The analogy with snail mail is blurry because every snail mail exchange doesn't include the full transcript of the conversation.
Why would google be allowed to build a johnchristopher@fastmail ad profile based on the mail sent to my gmail correspondents ?
The analogy with snail mail is blurry because every snail mail exchange doesn't include the full transcript of the conversation.
The headline is deliberately inflammatory, leaving off the "turned over to third parties".
The actual statement itself is almost a tautology - when you give someone information, you don't expect that the information is private from them because you just gave it to them.
The actual statement itself is almost a tautology - when you give someone information, you don't expect that the information is private from them because you just gave it to them.
They should put that phrase on the login page.
Eric Schmidt, then Google CEO, openly said something in that direction in 2009:
http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-...
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
http://gawker.com/5419271/google-ceo-secrets-are-for-filthy-...
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
What a terrible, terrible "argument". As though anything one might want to hide is something they "shouldn't be doing in the first place".
Yeah you shouldn't have been raped but now that you have, you can't tell anybody about it through OUR service. Because we just don't care. Alcoholic? Don't count on OUR service, or any other service on the internet OR your home phone to get any support without anybody finding out. Not to mention: shouldn't have been doing that.
There is NOTHING wrong with having stuff to hide. I have stuff to hide. Didn't break to law, either. This is why I'm moving away from GMail, and Google in general, save for some searches every now and then and perhaps image search. "Don't be evil"? More like "We don't care".
Privacy IS important; anybody who says not is definitely someone I don't understand at all.
There is NOTHING wrong with having stuff to hide. I have stuff to hide. Didn't break to law, either. This is why I'm moving away from GMail, and Google in general, save for some searches every now and then and perhaps image search. "Don't be evil"? More like "We don't care".
Privacy IS important; anybody who says not is definitely someone I don't understand at all.
Nobody is denying anyone's legal right to privacy. Eric Schmidt was setting expectations about it, when he made that statement. You would have known if gawker didn't (1) Made their own value judgement. (private => filth) and equate privacy to security (2) Quoted the entire statement, instead of the part that fits the story that they want to tell.
In case you have't read it a hundred times before, he continues to say "But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."
In case you have't read it a hundred times before, he continues to say "But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."
Thanks for pointing out possible nuances. Unfortunately:
(1) I searched for this exact phrase (using Google :P) hoping to find the nuance to prove me wrong. I found it on Wikipedia [1] as well as on The Huffington Post [2], the latter actually containing the video in which he says these things. The problem is this: adding "but if you really need that kind of privacy, [you're screwed]" doesn't change the meaning of "if you have something to hide, you must've done something you shouldn't be doing" and that is still utterly, UTTERLY narrow minded.
(2) The terrible, terrible naive argument is made a lot today by all kinds of people (even by my own father, who is generally a huge role model for me), making my criticism of it, unfortunately, quite relevant towards today's spying of the US government. Even if Schmidt HAD added nuance to take away my criticism of what he said -- which he either didn't, or I haven't found it --, it would've stood as a more general criticism. I'm not convinced that Schmidt doesn't still stand by what he said back then, but it can't be too hard for him to make a statement if he feels his views have been improperly represented by the media. If he has, I would love to know about it. As it stands right now, I just cannot have private communication through any service which Google provides, and that means I actually might have to be careful about what I write, and THAT is very wrong in my opinion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-priva...
(1) I searched for this exact phrase (using Google :P) hoping to find the nuance to prove me wrong. I found it on Wikipedia [1] as well as on The Huffington Post [2], the latter actually containing the video in which he says these things. The problem is this: adding "but if you really need that kind of privacy, [you're screwed]" doesn't change the meaning of "if you have something to hide, you must've done something you shouldn't be doing" and that is still utterly, UTTERLY narrow minded.
(2) The terrible, terrible naive argument is made a lot today by all kinds of people (even by my own father, who is generally a huge role model for me), making my criticism of it, unfortunately, quite relevant towards today's spying of the US government. Even if Schmidt HAD added nuance to take away my criticism of what he said -- which he either didn't, or I haven't found it --, it would've stood as a more general criticism. I'm not convinced that Schmidt doesn't still stand by what he said back then, but it can't be too hard for him to make a statement if he feels his views have been improperly represented by the media. If he has, I would love to know about it. As it stands right now, I just cannot have private communication through any service which Google provides, and that means I actually might have to be careful about what I write, and THAT is very wrong in my opinion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/07/google-ceo-on-priva...
that means I actually might have to be careful about what I write, and THAT is very wrong in my opinion.
You have to be anyway, you are responsible for your actions and every action of everybody can result in something. The problem is what we as society want to be acceptable results, that is, where we as society want to draw the line.
You have to be anyway, you are responsible for your actions and every action of everybody can result in something. The problem is what we as society want to be acceptable results, that is, where we as society want to draw the line.
Eric Schmidt would feel right at home in prison then. I hear there's not much privacy there either.
Like all the mail providers should do? Because it applies to all mail providers, not just Google
i want to +100 your comment
personally I was more amused by the "ordinary course of business" defense— that an otherwise (as argued by the plaintiffs at least) unlawful activity could somehow be made lawful by it being part of the defenses "ordinary course of business".
I look forward to seeing bank robbers use that one. :P
I look forward to seeing bank robbers use that one. :P
Few years back i lost my gmail id after some hacker deleted it which i used for everything like my accounts, offer letters i received etc. Since then i distributed my things in different places. I still use another gmail account only for general purpose..i believe fastmail more than any other..ofcourse recently i am loving outlook but still Microsoft is more non-trustable than google..ain't it?...
Does anyone on Hacker News who still uses Gmail expect privacy?
Does anyone on Hacker News still use Gmail?
I expect lots of us use it. There is nothing in my email that the NSA would find remotely interesting. Therefore, there is no practical reason not to use it.
Yeah. And I feel bad recommending GMail to friends and family before. Now I tell them to leave it. I should have known.. Right now my Google usage is at almost 0%. (I still use calendar.. for now.)
What else would you recommend if you own your own domain?
I must have webmail, IMAP, calendar, contact list, task list and seamless sync with mobiles. And be free. And be outside of the US.
Not sure if they already allow having your own domain, but the rest is covered: https://mykolab.com/ based in non-EU country Switzerland. Of course it's not free, but keep in mind: if it's free, you are probably the product being sold.
If you need to use your own domain, set up your own server or VPS and install https://kolab.org/ (it's all listed on https://prism-break.org/)
If you need to use your own domain, set up your own server or VPS and install https://kolab.org/ (it's all listed on https://prism-break.org/)
Absolutely, until there's a viable replacement for it.
You're aware that gmail.com was registered to an entity that wasn't Google between its original registration on 1995-08-13 and Google's acquisition of it on 2004-03-31, right?
While looking for that second date, I dug up a piece of spamming + domain hoarding history:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.protocols.tcp-ip....
(Note the date of that post and what domain shows up in his list...)
While looking for that second date, I dug up a piece of spamming + domain hoarding history:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.protocols.tcp-ip....
(Note the date of that post and what domain shows up in his list...)
This is the same old "algorithms reading my email is a violation of privacy" argument from back when Gmail started. Ignoring the bullshit headline, Google's argument comes down to the following:
1. Machines scanning your email doesn't violate privacy 2. Even if it did, you consent to it when you sign up for a Gmail account 3. It's impossible to provide email hosting without some level of automated processing of messages
Google's clearly in the right here, and the various outlets reporting this story need to learn some journalistic ethics.