Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaitou Ace
Oh so then
This is just something you made up. That's what I was asking. Should've just said so, I wouldn't have wasted time replying further.
Google is very clearly citing Smith v Maryland in the context of automated processing necessary for email to work, not in the "All your data is belong to us."
I mean
Is not all that convoluted at all and provides all the context necessary.
This is the entirety of the claim that google is making. You are free to pretend that it says something else, or take bits out of context, but please don't claim that the actual text says anything of that nature.
|
How can it be out of context? It is the fragment that Google quoted out of Smith v. Maryland. If Google thinks that the fragment requires context, then they would have quoted more than just that fragment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twowheels
Why is this such a surprise? Those of us who've been using e-mail since before everybody and their dog had an e-mail address understand that it's an extremely insecure protocol, passed by plain text, and making many hops between your computer and the recipient.
As stated (but I'll state it more broadly)... anything that you send to a 3rd Party no longer has a reasonable assumption of being private. That's true whether it's a hand written letter or electronic communication. Once anybody else has access to it, all bets are off.
How exactly does one expect half of the email features to work without parsing the messages?
|
This isn't about the security of the protocol. In Google's opinion the email situation is similar to the Smith v. Maryland case in that information was voluntarily turned over to third parties, in this case Google.