Google says privacy should not be expected

[speakingtohe]

I have never sent an email with anything that I don't want read. SAme with snail mails. I have received possibly 1% of my personal mail, mail addressed to me by correspondents, banks etc, and even some parcels, that were opened and taped back up.

I have received even more mail addressed to others, that I could have accidentally opened, as it was delivered to me.

And while I may or may not have been explicitly warned by my email service providers, I have been warned often enough by online banking and others to never send certain information by email.

I am sure there are those too intellectually challenged shall we say to notice these warnings, and those fortunate enough to never have received someone else's mail or have one of their own letters or parcels go astray.

For the most part any expectation of total privacy is pretty naïve although for sure I would wish it otherwise.

Helen

[SteveEisenberg]

To stir the pot:

I wonder what they do about generating data for software testing, such as to make sure the right actions take place when mailboxes get almost full. Best practice would be to create lots of test data from scratch. Easiest practice would be to copy blocks of production data to test.

If I had to guess, I'd think that in the early days of a service like gmail, they did it the easy way, but, by now, practices have improved. However, I really have no idea.

Same for the question of whether system administrators have the ability to waste lunch hours randomly looking at production emails. My guess again is -- in the early days only. The question then becomes -- how sure are we that the early days are over?

Personally, who I send mail from and to is not a privacy concern. If mining that can stop a militant attack, go for it. But the content of my mail items (have I ever emailed, or snail mailed, a password?) should be private.

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

In a purely technical sense, you're incorrect. There are different stamps with different rates (in the U.S., anyway) for postcards and first-class envelopes. Different rates = different services.

Furthermore, I think it's stretching a bit to equate the difficulty of setting up PGP to work with Gmail with that of buying an envelope.



I don't care if every mail sorter reads my postcard. My beef is with the equivalent of entering all of them into a database that can correlate this postcard with my other postcards and everyone else's as well.



I understand that there isn't in fact (and that it's unlikely to get better), but I don't understand why anyone (except Google) would claim that there shouldn't.



As a quick example, there's nothing preventing Google from parsing Amazon receipts and recording what you've bought in the past and how much you've paid for it. At that point, they don't know any more than Amazon, but then if they parse receipts from other online stores, Google then knows more about your purchasing habits than any of the individual stores. They can then sell access to that information back to the vendors. It would be relatively easy to figure out if you shop around for a good price or if you pay whatever your favorite vendor charges. From an economic/negotiation perspective, that creates a huge information asymmetry and it's to your disadvantage. So far Google doesn't appear to have leveraged it ("Don't be evil" and all that), but bear in mind that what they're currently asking the court for is the legal latitude to do those kinds of things (or rather, to have the court affirm that they already had it).

They already do that they don't and wont sell the data though as that would be counter productive to their business model they just use it to target the most relevant ads for their customers without giving out user data. So if you are selling something Google will target the your most likely customers for you but wont tell you who they targeted. (Google Now) Google scans etickets that are emailed to you to show you your flight time etc They will probably get better and better at identifying such info so you would be informed of the Show, Concert or Movie ticket you've booked. Or if you have booked concert tickets in a different city it will find and show you ads from airlines or maybe a rental car company if that your preferred mode of travel.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

Furthermore, I think it's stretching a bit to equate the difficulty of setting up PGP to work with Gmail with that of buying an envelope.

Nope, it's the same as making your own envelope and using it.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Where did *this* come from? None of the linked articles mention building email databases. Can you point me to something *reliable* that says Google is building an email database? They are most certainly scanning email for spam and to add (hopefully) relevant ads.

Once again, *all* email providers have the ability to provide the government with details of your email. Always have. Always will.

Unless they're less technologically advanced than MS Outlook, the email's already in a database. They're asking the court to declare that there are essentially no restrictions on what they can do with it. That's already true de facto and I recognize that, but they want it de jure, as well.

Originally Posted by Dopedangel

They already do that they don't and wont sell the data though as that would be counter productive to their business model they just use it to target the most relevant ads for their customers without giving out user data. So if you are selling something Google will target the your most likely customers for you but wont tell you who they targeted.

I agree with you and that's what I meant by "access" to the data rather than the data themselves. What Google is clearly selling is the ability to do market segmentation based on the content of your email, which is what they mean by "relevant" ads. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I think (and perhaps others disagree) that can cross into being unethical. Advertising restaurants in London because I'm booked at a conference is one thing. Advertising something at a higher price because I have a history of paying too much or homeopathic remedies because I show a pattern of medical ignorance is another.

[Kaitou Ace]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

Unless they're less technologically advanced than MS Outlook, the email's already in a database. They're asking the court to declare that there are essentially no restrictions on what they can do with it. That's already true de facto and I recognize that, but they want it de jure, as well.



I agree with you and that's what I meant by "access" to the data rather than the data themselves. What Google is clearly selling is the ability to do market segmentation based on the content of your email, which is what they mean by "relevant" ads. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I think (and perhaps others disagree) that can cross into being unethical. Advertising restaurants in London because I'm booked at a conference is one thing. Advertising something at a higher price because I have a history of paying too much or homeopathic remedies because I show a pattern of medical ignorance is another.

That's not really what google is saying at all here...

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/14/46...ion-of-privacy

Basically it relates to non gMail users, and the fact that google runs the emails through their servers for things like address/tracking number highlighting, and keywords for their ads. Not regarding to google reading your emails at all.

Non-Gmail users who send emails to Gmail recipients must expect that their emails will be subjected to Google's normal processes as the [email] provider for their intended recipients.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kaitou Ace

Basically it relates to non gMail users, and the fact that google runs the emails through their servers for things like address/tracking number highlighting, and keywords for their ads. Not regarding to google reading your emails at all.

It isn't about Google reading the emails, and storing data on gmail users, it's about Google reading the emails, and storing data on non-gmail users.

It doesn't matter if you decide not to use gmail anymore, as long as you send or receive emails from gmail accounts, Google still gets data on you.

What is strange here is what Google considers that the term "privacy" means to them. In the motion, it seems to go with an absolute definition. As long as another person (or software) is seeing the correspondence beside the sender and the recipient the correspondence isn't private.

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And another take on the "News"

http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/08...vacy-in-gmail/

Folks, unless you're encrypting your email, all the email servers in the world have plaintext access to all your email. It's like writing on the back of a postcard.

The article on thenextweb.com is trying to make some kind of point here:

The case that Google is currently defending itself in is a class action lawsuit arguing that Gmail’s feature for scanning emails to target ads goes against wiretap laws. It’s technically accurate that Google used the quote in its legal defense, but using that fact to claim that Google has completely given up on user privacy is both sensational and disingenuous. The company is, after all, bound to its own privacy policy.

but might have failed to notice that the privacy policy doesn't mention anything about email content, and therefore Google isn't bound by anything in regards to email content.

What I am curious about is what happens to emails that have a disclaimer such as:

If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender and delete it.
Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of this email or its attachment(s) is forbidden.

[Kaitou Ace]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It isn't about Google reading the emails, and storing data on gmail users, it's about Google reading the emails, and storing data on non-gmail users.

It doesn't matter if you decide not to use gmail anymore, as long as you send or receive emails from gmail accounts, Google still gets data on you.

What is strange here is what Google considers that the term "privacy" means to them. In the motion, it seems to go with an absolute definition. As long as another person (or software) is seeing the correspondence beside the sender and the recipient the correspondence isn't private.

There is no way for a web service to handle your mail and have the automated system not "see" the text, it's how spam checking is done, it's how google pulls out stuff like addresses and offers to map them. If you have issues with that, encrypt everything, because every single service is going to scan through the email for verification and enhancements.

The article on thenextweb.com is trying to make some kind of point here:

but might have failed to notice that the privacy policy doesn't mention anything about email content, and therefore Google isn't bound by anything in regards to email content.

What I am curious about is what happens to emails that have a disclaimer such as:

As always, that disclaimer is worth the paper it's written on.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What I am curious about is what happens to emails that have a disclaimer such as:

What I am curious about is what happens to emails that have a disclaimer such as:

Quote:
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender and delete it.
Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of this email or its attachment(s) is forbidden

Hmmm. Interesting point. The message seems to admit a certain fallibility in the senders distribution process.

Forbidding disclosure of something that was sent to you, with no other explanation or referral to a law or authority seems to me just plain silly.

Kind of like me saying to someone I forbid you to eat butter. Would make most people I know just eat more butter with a digit held up as they were doing it

Helen

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kaitou Ace

There is no way for a web service to handle your mail and have the automated system not "see" the text, it's how spam checking is done, it's how google pulls out stuff like addresses and offers to map them. If you have issues with that, encrypt everything, because every single service is going to scan through the email for verification and enhancements.

But there is a difference between "see" and "store data". In the example that was given the recipient's assistant opens the letter and this can be expected, but that doesn't also include the expectation that the assistant will make a copy of the letter or of parts of the letter for his/her own use.

Google can check for spam and not keep the data.

[Kaitou Ace]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But there is a difference between "see" and "store data". In the example that was given the recipient's assistant opens the letter and this can be expected, but that doesn't also include the expectation that the assistant will make a copy of the letter or of parts of the letter for his/her own use.

Google can check for spam and not keep the data.

... But it's in a gmail account, on gmail servers.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Hmmm. Interesting point. The message seems to admit a certain fallibility in the senders distribution process.

Forbidding disclosure of something that was sent to you, with no other explanation or referral to a law or authority seems to me just plain silly.

Kind of like me saying to someone I forbid you to eat butter. Would make most people I know just eat more butter with a digit held up as they were doing it

Helen

This is a disclaimer that I've often encountered in mails from institutions, and at one place of employment we were supposed to have it as part of the signature.

But this is the kind of meaning that "privacy" holds to most of us. The postal worker might hold my postcard, but since he/she is not the recipient they won't make a copy of it and distribute it.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kaitou Ace

... But it's in a gmail account, on gmail servers.

But that is someone's gmail account, it's space on gmail's servers that is assigned to a user.

[Kaitou Ace]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But that is someone's gmail account, it's space on gmail's servers that is assigned to a user.

But that's pretty much all that google is saying they do with them.

From the filing itself, googles claim is that

As numerous courts have held, the automated processing of email is so widely understood and accepted that the act of sending an email constitutes implied consent to automated processing as a matter of law.

They aren't actually claiming that the email is now theirs to do with as they choose, and I haven't seen any statement to that effect.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kaitou Ace

But that's pretty much all that google is saying they do with them.

No, it isn't. The case is about non-gmail accounts, and data that is stored on those users.

If I get an email sent to my non-gmail address from a gmail address, or the other way around, Google gathers information on me that is not related to a Gmail account of my own. To go back to the example, the recipient's assistant doesn't just put the information from the letter in a folder for the recipient, but makes a folder on the sender for his/her own use.