Gmail and Privacy : Verdict Google Innocent

I was disappointed reading such a crappy article by supposed "geek" who understood the bg stuff. If a new aged hippy wrote this article, it would be understandable, but my oh dear my, it was on CodeWalkers.

Issue raised by the writer:

| Google ads parsing emails |
- reply -
the thousands of spam filters on the internet already parse your email messages. your message travels thru hundreds of servers located in places that you don't even know of.

what's wrong is yet another program parses your messages only to improve your online experience? Note: it is a program (few lines of code, that doesn't think, understand, feel, react, bitch, spy or whatever) that is just parsing your code. No Google won't send that to your aunt or ex-gf.

| Google reads your emails |
- reply -
now this is 100% BS. no one in Google is gonna read your emails, they ain't got the time to do so, and most probably your message is too unimportant anyway. stop cribbing and look at what's actually happening.

| Gmail = Government Mail |
- reply -
oh when I read this line, I lost all respect for this writer and quit reading any further. You (the writer, Paul whatever) have derived false conclusions because most probably you don't understand what's actually happening. Go buy a book, read it, browse thru IRC, understand -the process- before ever again writing an article on something.

-------------------------------

The only reason this article was written is because I think Google bashing has become the fashion. I hate these spineless thoughtless writers who can't make up opinions for themselves.

You Paul Pasture Talk are a disgrace to my computer screen. Alt+F4.

I think the real worry about privacy comes less from Google (or anyone) parsing the email and more from any information gleaned from and stored after parsing it. Anyone running the mail servers the email travels through could be doing this now, Google's Gmail just put the topic in the spotlight.

The same sort of privacy concerns surrounded TiVo when it first came out. They were keeping information about what people watched. After the Janet Jackson Superbowl halftime show slip, they were able to publish stats about how many people rewound to see it again. That seems pretty close to the original source for Big Brother in Orwell's _1984_.



I agree that most people are not in danger of having their email read by anyone for any reason. But, what chance is low enough? 1 in 100? 1 in 1,000,000? There's also a problem with Google's statement that deleted email may stay on Google's servers even after you've deleted it. That raises the question about what does Google plan on doing with that email. Parsing deleted emails to display context-senstive ads doesn't really make a lot of sense.



I think you missed the reference to the slang term for FBI agents as "G-men." (I believe it came out of the 1920s mob-era in Chicago or New York.)

it doesn't remind me of 1984.. if that data transmitted is anonymous (and can optionally be disabled.. isn't TiVo open-source?), that it is not such a big deal.

public statistics is not a threat to privacy. knowing things like "30% of USA citizens drive a car" or "25% of them are underage", or "40% rewound to see JJ's butt" don't tell me nothing about you personally, except that there is 40% chance that you did do it!




hey, i am not from the USA, but even i got this.. ;)

This isn't as simple as you'd think. At what level of grouping is someone's personal privacy too revealed?

Country - probably not;
State - again, probably not;
City - depends on what you're collecting
Zip Code? Street? Block? Building? Room?

This has long been a topic for the collection and analysis of medical information. You'd think just getting rid of the name, phone, and street address might work, but if the disease/condition is rare, the population is sparse, and the society is diverse, it doesn't take much more information than County, Age, Race, and Sex to determine who the medical data is about.

that's true, didn't think of that..

there is a fine line between privacy and statistics..

but i don't think that the line is anywhere near JJ's butt..

So, if the issue here is about Gmail then I think the range of data being collected is on a population larger than a single country. No more intrusive than a company putting out a survey. Nobody is makeing people use Gmail, and if that level of privacy is that big of an issue for you, theres probably bigger internet related fish to fry.

I was surprised to read lexxwern's post since I was fairly convinced that Postal Cow was bashing government protectionism, and then here comes lexxwern's arguments that seemed to miss the sneer in Cow's ruminations (the perfect vocabulary word considering the Cow moniker).

So maybe Cow is a libertarian. OK, I am not impressed by that line of political reasoning and so I point out this fact: the US government does have certain jurisdictional powers, among which are some measure of protectionism, the very thing that makes libertarians see fuschia, and once the legislature has established a one of these protections, then it can pretty much enforce it unless it is proven unconstitutional.

Some protections come from common law (if I tatoo a dotted line around my neck and then tatoo the words "Cut on dotted line" in the same area, and then you take me up on the offer, you can not claim a 'consent given' defense against the ensuing criminal prosecution you will face) or from codified legislation (even if I want to I can not sell myself into slavery). So if the 'G' decides that you can not consent to give away part of your legislatedly created privacy, Google can not snoop into your mail. Done.

But I do not think that the 'G' will take that tack. As Cow said there are too many other snoopers out there for such a protection to have much value.

Here's what I say. Google is neither innocent nor guilty. It is a business looking for its slice and if new law limits its workings it must retrench to meet the new lines. Nothing more. But anyone or any business entity that traffics in personal dat awithout explicit consent from the person or people who are the subjects of that data should be visited by a punishment so frightening and fearsome that the people responsible will never again have the courage to turn on a computer or even enter an electronics store!

'Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit'.

See, honcho, I read your post, and see the whole privacy advocate overreaction that is so common....

So what if they can attach an address to what show you are watching, and when you rewound..... That just means that maybe some employee who happens to be skimming records knows that someone at 234 east street likes to watch JJ's boobs.... whoodee freaking doo... Its not like its a crime....

Next, you know, that even if you delete mail off a server, it can still probably be recovered. Perhaps they are attempting to help out with stuff goign through the email problem by not making the government have to work their tails off to get said email. Its also possible that if something illegal was being taken through their servers, having the email that passed through will serve better than the recovered chunk of one. Its not like they can legally skim your email and just hand it out to people (unless their provacy policy says they can), and its not like big brotgher can get it without a specific court order, they can't just 'go fishing' on ISP's servers....

Meh... I think you may all be nuts

Ok heres what I think about the whole Gmail issue. I dont fear Google is going to do anything with my email that I would regret signing up for their service. Yes people are worried the Government may be watching and trying to obtain these emails, and I suppose possibly with the right warrants and crap they might be able to do that, I admit I don't really know. BUT how many people currently send confidential information online? I sure don't without proper cautions, and email does [b]NOT[b] fit in the catagory of proper cautions. Anyone with technical common sense knows not to trust email for sensitive data. I don't see why Google should be razed for Gmail, if I used web based email I'd go for it. This system is not exactly new, just a combination of several systems already in place.

...just to throw a comment out, i've been using gmail, since it first released its beta testing, and it's been incredible so far. fast servers, i like some of it's 'minute' features that just make it that much better. also, i know i havn't had my account "thaaaat" long but still, i have not recieved any spam yet, *knocks on wood*. lastly, what was the point of this comment? iunno, heh, just wanted to post that i'm a proud gmail user.

I am also a happy gmail user, I have recieved no spam, and you cant beat 1gb for storage. Also I have to thank Jarid for the invite.

npnpnp still have 4 more? i think? hit me up if you want one, and soon enough dasnov will have 7 of his own, since every acct gets 7 invites after..a period of time..not sure what that is though.

Google has not sent me an invintation, since I created the account. Someone told me that they stopped giving out the invites, but that could just be a rumor.

i think it took my 2nd account..like 3 weeks or so to get it.. not 100% sure.

I'm not sure it's an issues of current political belief, as much as a concern as to what degree of invasion of a persons privacy will be allowed.

You should all take a look at

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/030807a.asp

this has an article about a bill that was "not" funded (thankfully) but has gained a great deal of support.