The Trouble with Gmail

The Trouble with Gmail
Mark Rasch, 2004-06-14

Mass acceptance of the keyword scanning in Google's new e-mail service could leave government spooks feeling lucky.

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-14
Todd Knarr (3 replies)

There's one crucial difference between GMail and a lot of other schemes: Google says up-front to the subscriber that this is what they're going to do. It's not hidden, they don't even try to divert attention away from it. The subscriber knows exactly what's going to be done. I object to a service do...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-16
Andrew Jones (1 replies)

I guess the difference between You using procmail and Google scanning Your mail is that Google is a third party. Sure, it's being done for You, but they're still a third party. I think Mark's point about the subpoena issue is a decent one.

You sound like You know something about law, and i have t...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-16
Anonymous

Here the mail room does need permission, but it's usually one of the standard policies you agree to as part of being hired. But there's this: if you give permission for the mailroom to check your mail and sort or route it appropriately (eg. call you if you get documents from certain important people...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-16
Anonymous

The privacy invasion comes into effect because you're violating the sender's (of the e-mail) privacy. The receipient who is using g-mail knows his privacy is being violated, but the sender does not - and legally and ethically that does not stand....

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-17
magpublisher

I have Gmail. A couple of Gmail, plus, I have about a dozen invite,to give away. First my concern with Gmail, was if a fluke with their computer search engine, happen. Then say anybody, who would put say the words money in Google, for a general search, ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

It's a search, but it's a search FOR YOU 2004-06-14
Roger (3 replies)

Certainly examination of your email by Google's servers is a search. But what makes it legitimate - and fundamentally different from law enforcement surveillance - is that the result of the information processing is only presented to the lawful owner of the information, i.e. YOU....

[ more ] [ reply ]

A search FOR YOU 2004-06-16
Andrew Jones

Yes, but did You miss the "all-parties-consent" part? I don't consent to Gmail scanning mail i send to You, and that puts the whole service on shaky ground....

[ more ] [ reply ]

It's a search, but it's a search FOR YOU 2004-06-16
Anonymous

True, but how do you get around the problems caused by the advertising contract? I expect that it would make your e-mail discoverable for exactly the reason outlined, and that's a real problem....

[ more ] [ reply ]

It's a search, but it's a search FOR YOU 2004-06-16
Josh

This is a point that I would argue. There is considerable information that would also be given to Google and the advertisers, even if only by inference, i.e. as was pointed out in the article the displaying of a particular ad would indicate content in your email related to that add. Additionally, if...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-15
Shawn NUnley, CISSP (2 replies)

Gmail is, for me, a near perfect service. I use it as my destination mailbox for over 30 security-related mailing lists that I monitor every day. Gmail makes it simple to follow the conversations and sort the different list traffic into meaningful views. Unlike other mail clients, I find this mai...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-16
Andrew Jones (1 replies)

Of course private communication is not the only use for e-mail. Of course the content of the messages sent to those mailing lists is public knowledge. But the issue is not about You and Your mailing lists. It's about all possible uses of e-mail. You certainly don't imagine that everyone is using Gma...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-18
Anonymous

The point is that the privacy implications of an email service are independent of the use of Adsense:
* IF Google and its employees abide by the enforceable policies to which you agree when signing up for Gmail, then your privacy is not at risk from Gmail's search features. [1]
* IF they don't abi...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Re: The Trouble with Gmail 2006-11-08
Anonymous

Get this through your heads........ worry and worry now, if anyone out there actually believes that we live in country where we should value and treasure our priivacy.....????? in this free society we live in. Simply because we are told to, not worry?

Think about this... worry, worry and worry......

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with your generalization 2004-06-15
Asheesh Laroia [comments@asheeshenterprises.com] (2 replies)

Your statement goes: "if a computer programmed by people learns the contents of a communication, and takes action based on what it learns, it invades privacy."

My concern goes: "Doesn't this mean that *displaying* the email is invading privacy?"

Your statement is so vague it includes my person...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with your generalization 2004-06-16
Mark Rasch (2 replies)

The computer does not learn the contents of the communication in order to display it. It displays it irrespective of the contents. If it displayed different things based upon the text, then yes. And its not just the G-mail users' privacy I worry about, it also includes the sender's privacy....

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with your generalization 2004-06-16
Bill Eggers

That's the problem I have with this service. It's one thing to be up front and tell your subscribers their e-mail will be monitored, it's another to do that to unknowing senders who don't subscribe and have never agreed to the policy. If you think Google will keep this information to itself, and tha...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with your generalization 2004-06-18
Roger (1 replies)

Mark, you're a lawyer and I'm not, so maybe you can clarify this for me if I'm all wrong.
As I understand it (largely from usenet debates on publication of private email), the sender has no right to privacy anyway, although he may have copyright. From the moment it is posted, the recipient is the ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Sender Right to Privacy 2004-06-21
Mark Rasch (1 replies)

The term sender and recipient are obviously geared towards a half duplex mode like email and the like. THe law speaks of "intercpetion in transmission" and requires the consent of ALL parties. Just how you "intercept" an email is not clear. The federal law distinguishes between mail in transmiss...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Sender Right to Privacy 2004-06-21
Anonymous

Sounds like the quantam theory of e-mail. Did the cat read the e-mail or not? Nobody knows until we stop the wave function and check....

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with your generalization 2004-06-16
Andrew Jones

I think the statement should include "on behalf of a third party". In that case, yes, displaying the contents of someone else's mail is a violation of that person's privacy....

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-15
C High (1 replies)

What happens when one uses PGP/GnuPG or some other encryption on the text of the messages one sends through the Gmail servers?...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-18
Anonymous

Then you attain privacy. But the mail search function won't work, so it'd be a real bummer to save more than a few dozen emails this way. In which case, you might as well use any another free webmail service....

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-15
Anonymous

What makes Gmail so different from sending mail from your ISP account? By time the e-mail reaches its destination address it has been "read" by several servers between you and the person you are sending the e-mail to. I know you are going to say "But it is just the packet headers that get read so it...

[ more ] [ reply ]

A different prospective? [ Your argument isn't analytical ] 2004-06-16
Bipin Gautam <visitbipin_hotmail+com> (1 replies)

A different prospective? [ Your argument isn't analytical ]

------Snip-----
But imagine if the government were to put an Echelon-style content filter on routers and ISPs, where it examines billions of communications and "flags" only a small fraction (based upon, say, indicia of terrorist activ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

A different prospective? [ Your argument isn't analytical ] 2004-06-16
Matt

--- Begin OP Said ---
Even if the filters are perfect and point the finger only completely guilty people,
--- End OP Said ---

--- Begin You Said ---
See the basic difference between intercepting communication via an electronic program for a purpose; and the same work done by a group of pe...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-16
Anonymous

http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Your logic makes using Antivirus Software Illegal! 2004-06-18
Bart Declercq (1 replies)

You say:

if a computer programmed by people learns the contents of a communication, and takes action based on what it learns, it invades privacy.

By that logic, I'm invading the privacy of everybody who sends me mail by having antivirus software & antispam software on my mailservers...

Whi...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Your logic makes using Antivirus Software Illegal! 2004-06-21
Anonymous

Antivirus software is installed by the user and can be disabled if needed. Even with email services that offer virus protection you have to give consent and you still have the ability to disable the virus protection. You can't disable what gmail does to your mail.

If you are concerned about priva...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2004-06-19
Matthew Murphy

As it stands, the argument against GMail could also be made against anti-virus, IDS, and any other signature-based system.

For one, wiretap law is known to be horrendously inadequate when dealing with cybercrime-related cases.

For two, the major difference between Fmr. Attorney General Reno's ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Your logic makes use of any machinery at ISPs entirely illegal 2004-06-20
Simon Hradecky

It can not be denied, that any communication being transmitted across any medium, be it the Internet, satellite, etc., needs to "scanned" for its contents and brought into the appropriate form for transmission (e.g. conversion in electromagnetic waves, voltage on/off signals, ...)

Further on, the...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The quoted law 2004-06-21
Matthew Durie

You quote the Californian law:
The answer is not so simple. California Penal Code, Section 631 makes it a crime to "by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, ... willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, ... learn the contents or meani...

[ more ] [ reply ]

what about spam filters? 2004-06-21
Anonymous

"Simply put, if a computer programmed by people learns the contents of a communication, and takes action based on what it learns, it invades privacy."
- unfortunately this is what spam filters do. they look into the contents of a message, rank it, and can perform different actions based on this ran...

[ more ] [ reply ]

The Trouble with Gmail 2008-09-19
Anonymous

will not log on to the sign in part of gmail. It did work on the internet explorer but now it does'nt ...

[ more ] [ reply ]