Google says privacy should not be expected

[Kaitou Ace]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

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.

But where are you getting that they do that from?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kaitou Ace

But where are you getting that they do that from?

The motion filed by Google’s attorneys.

[Kaitou Ace]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The motion filed by Google’s attorneys.

Which doesn't say that...

Edit: I am not actually being facetious. You can read the entire filing from google here. The bits in question start on page 28. It's just a page or so of text, and is not in legalese either, it's very simple reading.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kaitou Ace

Which doesn't say that...

Edit: I am not actually being facetious. You can read the entire filing from google here. The bits in question start on page 28. It's just a page or so of text, and is not in legalese either, it's very simple reading.

Yes, it is very simple reading. Google clearly quotes the Smith v. Maryland case: “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Google being the third party they feel that the information is being voluntarily turned over to them by the non-gmail users.

[Kaitou Ace]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Yes, it is very simple reading. Google clearly quotes the Smith v. Maryland case: “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Google being the third party they feel that the information is being voluntarily turned over to them by the non-gmail users.

Oh so then

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.

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

Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient’s ECS provider in the course of delivery. Indeed,“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over tothird parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979). In particular, the Court noted that persons communicating through a service provided by an intermediary (in the Smith case, a telephone call routed through a telephone company) must necessarily expect that the communication will be subject to the intermediary’s systems. For example, the Court explained that in using the telephone, a person “voluntarily convey[s] numerical information to the telephone company and ‘expose[s]’ that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business.” (emphasis added).The same is true of email sent through an ECS provider. As numerous courts have held,the automated processing of email is so widely understood and accepted that the act of sending anemail constitutes implied consent to automated processing as a matter of law.

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.

[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?

[doctorow]

Old article, but still very relevant (in regard to Fourth Amendment and all):

No email privacy rights under Constitution, US gov claims

The government argued:

... any expectation of privacy can be waived [citing case holding that a privacy disclaimer on a bulletin board "defeats claims to an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy."] Many employees are provided with e-mail and Internet services by their employers. Often, those employees are required to waive any expectation of privacy in their email each time they log on to their computers. [Court] orders directed to the email of employees who have waived any possible expectation of privacy do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

[Sil_liS]

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.

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.

[Barcey]

And thank you Nilay Patel at the Verge for spreading false information.

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

Yes Google was referring to non Gmail users sending emails to Gmail users, that does not mean the Gmail users have an expectation of privacy. Please show me anywhere in the terms of service or any statement from Google that indicates that Gmail users have an expectation of privacy.

[Sil_liS]

To get an idea about the complaint against Google:
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION
Separate from the normal web-mail processing for SPAM, viruses, spellchecking, routing and delivery, storage, and/or the placement of an email message in a user’s inbox, Google actually diverts email messages to separate devices to extract the meaning from the message. These separate devices do not deliver the message, nor do they simply spell-check, index, or highlight words. Google designed these devices to capture the authors’ actual thoughts (“thought data”) for Google’s secret use. Any other definition of “automated processing” or “automated scanning” used in the context of this Motion is irrelevant and ignores the Complaint’s recitation of the actual practices at issue.

Google creates and uses this “thought data” and attaches it to the messages so Google can better exploit the communication’s “meaning” for commercial gain. Google collects and stores the “thought data” separately from the email message and uses the “thought data” to: (1) spy on its users (and others); and, (2) amass vast amounts of “thought data” on millions of people (secret user profiles). Google’s attempt to describe its “thought data” mining generically as “automated processing” or “automated scanning” improperly rewrites Plaintiffs’ allegations.

Google does not disclose its “thought data” mining to anyone. Google’s undisclosed processes run contrary to its expressed agreements. Google even intercepts and appropriates the content of minors’ emails despite the minors’ legal incapacity to consent to such interception and use. Thus, these undisclosed practices are not within the ordinary course of business and cannot form the basis of informed consent. Despite Google’s proclamation, Google cannot do “as it wishe[s]” with the private communications of millions of unsuspecting users and third parties in violation of the privacy protections afforded by the statutes at issue here. Accordingly, Google’s motion should be denied.

[Sil_liS]

I got an email today that had a disclaimer. But now there was something added to the usual text of a disclaimer:

If a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) exists between [...] and the receiving
organization, then all contents shall be considered proprietary and covered under
the NDA.

I wonder if the addition has to do with the topic of the thread.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

There are differences that I think are incredibly important. First, if I write all of my correspondence on postcards, I understand that it isn't private, but neither do I expect the post office to be building a database that correlates my next correspondence with all of my previous ones.

Knowing that any individual could be reading any one of my messages is vastly different than knowing that an individual has access to all of my correspondence at once. Someone finding a postcard slightly erodes my privacy in the sense that someone has a snapshot of some aspect of my life. Google, though, is trying to determine (and is apparently succeeding at determining) what advertisements will convert to sales for each individual person.

The other important distinction is that with the Post Office, I have the option of either sending a postcard or spending slightly more money and sending a sealed letter. This is on a per-message basis and requires that I do no more setup than buying an envelope (which the Post Office will sell me if I'm even that shortsighted). Google doesn't offer me that option.

For me, it boils down to the difference between one person looking at my house while driving by and another obviously casing the joint. Google's reasoning is that since I haven't put up any protections against someone looking at my house, it's OK for them to look in all the windows and maybe try a few doors to see what brand of soda I drink and if I might be in the market for a new TV.

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.

[ApK]

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

I don't believe that is correct. Do you have a cite of any kind?
Or more to the point, can you specify what you meant by the following terms in your statement:

"use"
"the conversation"
"you"

thx,
ApK

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by theducks

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.

The Terms of Use don't say that the communication will be excluded from Google's prying bots, nor does it say that the prying bots will limit themselves to SPAM, viruses, spellchecking, routing and delivery, storage, and/or the placement of an email message in a user’s inbox.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The Terms of Use don't say that the communication will be excluded from Google's prying bots, nor does it say that the prying bots will limit themselves to SPAM, viruses, spellchecking, routing and delivery, storage, and/or the placement of an email message in a user’s inbox.

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.