Google says privacy should not be expected

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by theducks

I said that I did not sign an agreement to Gmails TOU.

As an outside party, my mail inbound and outbound does not have a Waiver on recording privacy. The sender can NOT waive my rights simply by sending me a reply.
They are Recording, even if it is only a subset of the message.

But the point is that it doesn't matter because whoever your email provider is, your privacy is not guaranteed. It isn't a right that you had to begin with.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by theducks

I am in your camp

I don't expect my mail to be proof against casual observation, just like I would with a person to person conversation in a public place.
A private conversation should NOT be conducted in a public place.

When you make a deliberate RECORD (use) of the conversation (in the USA), you need at least:
1) a court wiretap order
2) permission of BOTH parties

If you have a Gmail account and I don't, Google does NOT have a TOU agreement from both parties.
Those communications should be completely excluded from their prying bots.

I used the word casual above. The Google cars driving around on a public road taking images of what could be seen with a naked eye don't bother me.
If they use other enhanced techniques (telephoto, Yagi antennas...) to gather data or trespass onto private drives, I do object.

I know very little about the legalities. Common sense tells me that if I email someone they can do what they will with the contents. They can forward it around the globe for example.

Perhaps if I got a signed declaimer from them saying they would not before sending it it might have some weight. I doubt it would extend to there ISP or Google though if they have already agreed to different terms with them. AFAIK once you send an email or normal mail it is the property of the intended recipient. The Post office will not give it back for example. Again I do not know for sure.

Common sense dictates that I don't mail, email, or even discuss in public or on my phone anything that could cause me harm or embarrassment. It is why blackmailers and kidnappers disguise their handwriting, and used payphones or disposable phones and disguised their voices.

Helen




.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by theducks

I am in your camp

When you make a deliberate RECORD (use) of the conversation (in the USA), you need at least:
1) a court wiretap order
2) permission of BOTH parties

Unless there's been a change that I didn't see, this isn't universally true in the US. In some places, last time I looked, only one party of the conversation needed know that it was being recorded. As far as I recall, it only applied to audio recording. I've never heard of a law that would prevent me from acting as an undercover stenographer.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I know very little about the legalities. Common sense tells me that if I email someone they can do what they will with the contents. They can forward it around the globe for example.
Helen

.

Helen
I did not send the email TO gmail , an ISP. I sent the mail to their customer.

You are correct in that the ADDRESSEE can chose to further distribute it.
The addressee can not assign the (prior) right to a 3rd party.
Google sole duty as an ISP is to read the Address and deliver to the proper inbox . The do not have the right to analyze (and store) the content for any other purpose other than delivery.
This is about their non-RIGHT to use MY content (implied copyright) in any other form (than delivery) without permission.

Do I expect total secrecy? No!
Do I expect Google to come by and open my paper mail? No!
Google cars travel my street.
Why would they have the right in one case and not the other?
My Mailbox is at the curb of the same street they drive, so why not read that mail? Huh! I see no difference. Just think. Google could buy out the flailing US Postal service and gain the right to analize ALL mail

[ApK]

I believe you are pulling all that stuff about rights and duty out of thin air.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by ApK

I believe you are pulling all that stuff about rights and duty out of thin air.

Right!
That is why the FCC has sections in their regulations for Licensed Radio operators , And my former employer (Ma Bell) wasted time lecturing on ' not monitoring calls in progress'. The rull was stay on the line only just long enough to determine it is 'in use'.

Reviewing current regulations appears some of this has been watered down in the USA, but still in force in european countries.

[Sil_liS]

I think that instead of comparing email with mail in terms of privacy it is better if it is compared with telegrams. It isn't a communication that is limited between sender and receiver. When you send or receive a message it isn't wrapped in the digital equivalent on an envelope that the email provider is not supposed to open. The email provider of the sender checks the content before sending and the email provider of the receiver checks the content before delivery.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by theducks

Helen
I did not send the email TO gmail , an ISP. I sent the mail to their customer.

You are correct in that the ADDRESSEE can chose to further distribute it.
The addressee can not assign the (prior) right to a 3rd party.
Google sole duty as an ISP is to read the Address and deliver to the proper inbox . The do not have the right to analyze (and store) the content for any other purpose other than delivery.
This is about their non-RIGHT to use MY content (implied copyright) in any other form (than delivery) without permission.

Do I expect total secrecy? No!
Do I expect Google to come by and open my paper mail? No!
Google cars travel my street.
Why would they have the right in one case and not the other?
My Mailbox is at the curb of the same street they drive, so why not read that mail? Huh! I see no difference. Just think. Google could buy out the flailing US Postal service and gain the right to analize ALL mail

As I said I am not expert in the legalities. AFAIK I can assign someone to open my mail legally (secretary, roommate etc.), so I am not too sure that the recipient of email cannot do the same. I believe it is a crime to open a government post box except for authorized postal employees, but don't know anything the legality of reading mail after it has been delivered. Doing a search seems to indicate that it is not. Someone taking the mail out of your personal post box and reading it is not illegal unless they are breaking and entering or trespassing, or stealing it.

Maybe I have read too many mysteries etc. but I am of the opinion that not too much is as safe and secure as we would wish it, legally or not.

Helen

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by theducks

When you make a deliberate RECORD (use) of the conversation (in the USA), you need at least:
1) a court wiretap order
2) permission of BOTH parties

If you have a Gmail account and I don't, Google does NOT have a TOU agreement from both parties.

An email exchange isn't the same as a real-time phone conversation, though. It's like sending a letter. Or in this case, it's like sending a letter to a person in a different country with different regulations.

After you sent your email, then at most it becomes "property" of the receiver, and if the receiver's mail provider requires the receiver to accept that their email can be read, then it is probably is fine, legally.

There is an important aspect here: The provider of the receiver's mail service is not the only one who has access to your emails in plain text. Every ISP (not the same as the mail provider) whose network your email is routed through has access to your email contents if you are not encrypting it. Mail protocols are plain text.

So sending an email from A to B may well mean that there are ten other networks inbetween whose admins could, if they wanted, effortlessly read, analyse, store or otherwise process your emails. There has never been privacy in that area, unless you actively ensure it (by using tools like Pretty Good Privacy).

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by theducks

Helen
I did not send the email TO gmail , an ISP. I sent the mail to their customer.

You are correct in that the ADDRESSEE can chose to further distribute it.
The addressee can not assign the (prior) right to a 3rd party.
Google sole duty as an ISP is to read the Address and deliver to the proper inbox . The do not have the right to analyze (and store) the content for any other purpose other than delivery.
This is about their non-RIGHT to use MY content (implied copyright) in any other form (than delivery) without permission.

Do I expect total secrecy? No!
Do I expect Google to come by and open my paper mail? No!
Google cars travel my street.
Why would they have the right in one case and not the other?
My Mailbox is at the curb of the same street they drive, so why not read that mail? Huh! I see no difference. Just think. Google could buy out the flailing US Postal service and gain the right to analize ALL mail

So if ISP's can't analyse emails then all spam filters and antivirus-software that is not resident on your own PC can not be used, seems like a hell of a waste of bandwidth and time.

[Julius Caesar]

Since google made an arrogant statement like that, I wouldn't use Google Chrome, Google Androids, Google search engine, Google cars, Google Gmail and everything else made by them anymore.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Mivo

An email exchange isn't the same as a real-time phone conversation, though. It's like sending a letter. Or in this case, it's like sending a letter to a person in a different country with different regulations.

Sending an email isn't like sending a letter. When you send a letter you know that the post office will not open it. When you send an email you know that the email providers of the sender and receiver read the text to check for spam, viruses, etc. In terms of privacy from the company that is in charge of sending or the company that is in charge of receiving the mail/email it is the opposite of sending a letter.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by theducks

Right!
That is why the FCC has sections in their regulations for Licensed Radio operators , And my former employer (Ma Bell) wasted time lecturing on ' not monitoring calls in progress'. The rull was stay on the line only just long enough to determine it is 'in use'.

Reviewing current regulations appears some of this has been watered down in the USA, but still in force in european countries.

Ah. Were you under the impression that we were discussing FCC regulated radio traffic and public telephone service?
Or do you just think that anything=everything else?

[Barty]

Just don't do anything to attract attention from the FBI/CIA/DHS

Or the MPAA/RIAA

Or get sued by a private entity.

Or get divorced.

You'll be just fine.

Also, don't encrypt your communications. It'll only get the NSA excited.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Barty

Just don't do anything to attract attention from the FBI/CIA/DHS

Or the MPAA/RIAA

Or get sued by a private entity.

Or get divorced.

You'll be just fine.

Also, don't encrypt your communications. It'll only get the NSA excited.

Yes, if you get the NSA excited you might have to listen to their pickup lines.

Girl, you must have fallen from heaven because there is no tracking data to indicate how you arrived at this location.

I know exactly where you have been all my life

Are you tired? Because you've been running through my chat log reviews all day.

Just relax while we unzip your files.

I'd tap that.

I bet you're tired of guys who only pretend to listen.