Google Gmail Privacy Violations? [Archive]

Linda Buquet

04-02-2004, 12:17 PM

I am posting the entire Drugereport.com post as it's a headline and the link will change.

Google's Gmail Raises Privacy Concern
Fri Apr 02 2004 00:33:23 ET

Privacy advocates are concerned that there's one big flaw with Google Inc.'s free e-mail service: The company plans to read the messages.

LA TIMES reporting on Friday: The Internet search firm insists that it needs to know what's in the e-mails that pass through its system -- so that they can be sprinkled with advertisements Google thinks are relevant. After all, revenue from those targeted ads will pay for the Gmail service, which began a limited test Thursday, offering up to 500 times as much e-mail storage as competing Web e-mail programs from Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp.

The TIMES adds: The electronic letters won't be read by Google employees; computers will handle that chore. Nonetheless, the spector of seeing an ad for an antacid beside a message from a friend complaining about stomach pain is enough to make some people nervous about the e-mail service.

"There will undoubtedly be some folks that will see this and freak out," said Ray Everett-Church, chief privacy officer for TurnTide Inc., an anti-spam company in Conshohocken, Pa. The aggressive advertising strategy may put a damper on Google's biggest move yet away from its core business of Internet search. After reading the privacy policy on the Gmail website Thursday, consumer-rights groups began sending complaints to the privately held Mountain View, Calif., company and preparing to warn users to stay away.

"The privacy implications of going through and perusing a customer's e-mail to display targeted advertising could be the Achilles' heel for Google's services," said Jordana Beebe, the communications director for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, an consumer group in San Diego.

The consternation caught Larry Page, Google's co-founder and president of products, off guard.

"I'm very surprised that there are these kinds of questions," he said Thursday.

--------------------------

(Moderator - The Affiliate Marketing Forum)

Andilinks

04-02-2004, 12:42 PM

"There will undoubtedly be some folks that will see this and freak out,"

And many more who will look at the advanced features and consider it a fair trade.

Anyone who is sending sensitive trade secrets, embarrassing personal matters, or criminal transactions is already encrypting their e-mail (or should be).

The rest of us mostly don't care, and realize that ordinary e-mail is so insecure going through internet hubs etc., that one more potential evesdropper is no big deal, particularly when there is the payoff of free searchable storage that you don't have to file or trim to fit 4 MB.

Andi

Garrett

04-02-2004, 01:15 PM

Privacy advocates are up in arms over Google's new free email service, Gmail. Their concern? Google plans to "read" each email and add relevant AdSense advertising.

Google claims that they'll only read incoming mail, though if Gmail users send email to other Gmail users they will effectively read the outgoing mail as well.

They claim they will not log which adds appear to which users, nor will they record the keywords that appear.

Some privacy activists have compared this practice to your phone company listening to your phone conversation and cutting in to pitch products based on your discussion.

Others claim this practice is in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (http://floridalawfirm.com/privacy.html).

How do you feel about Google reading your email?

Andilinks

04-02-2004, 01:42 PM

Some privacy activists have compared this practice to your phone company listening to your phone conversation and cutting in to pitch products based on your discussion.

There are a few very important (and obvious) differences. Privacy advocates just need issues to get all up in arms about.

There are hundreds of email services to choose from, and if after weighing the pros and cons you choose a free one that reads your mail you have exercised a choice. People who don't read the fine print deserve what they get, but in any event I think the Google ads will be much less offensive than those served up by Hotmail et al...

The comparison of text to voice is a very poor analogy, they really need to come up with something better than that. No, an ad along side my message is NOTHING like cutting into a phone convo.

Andi

xmx

04-02-2004, 02:10 PM

I am also thinking it is very different to be an anonymous searcher on google that sees targeted ads and a registered web email user that has his personal and business messages analysed and recorded even if I delete them.

Lawyers are rightly discussing which limits there have to be to the Gmail services.

I agree with Andi that the comparison made with the phone services is wrong, perhaps it could be more correct if referred to sms ads hitting your mobile phone (in change of a free service) but also this is not immediate as clicking on a commercial link on the net.

FasTrac

04-02-2004, 02:30 PM

Google isn't really "intercepting" the email message, it is being sent to their servers. I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV but, I'm not sure how the federal law covering interception of electronic communication could or would be applied.

However, if Google discloses that they are going to do that to the subscribers then there can't be a privacy concern. I make all of my employees sign a statement acknowledging that any email they send or receive through our servers could be read. There is no expectation of privacy. I do that not because we read their mail but because I had an employee sue me because the admins of the servers had the ability to read their mail. It was tossed out but now I have everyone sign the acknowledgement to prevent a future problem.

flashedit

04-02-2004, 03:08 PM

My question is how obnoxious are the ads going to be? Are they going to be placed inline? Are they going to use space to the side of the email to display the ads? I am not as concerned about the “privacy issues” as I am with how distracting the ads are going to be.
That is not to say that the privacy issues are not a concern. However if you are aware that someone is going through your emails and don’t want them to, use some other email service.

Cogno

04-02-2004, 03:41 PM

I don't want them to read the messages that I receive or send.

John Glube

04-02-2004, 03:42 PM

I run a free service.

I offer people up front an email box with 1 gig of storage. The listed privacy policy makes it clear computers will be reading people's email to set up context adverts on their individual portals.

To sign up, people need to consent to the privacy policy which makes this clear (and also makes it clear I can disclose any information I need to the authorities).

Ah ... excuse please ... but how is Google doing anything under the table.

A couple of comments:

* Google is not the State. (At least not yet.)

The guarantee of Constitutional freedoms applies to actions between the state and the individual.

If the state wants to read my mail, or listen to my telephone calls, or read my email, I have certain rights, one of which is my court created right to privacy. This right is not absolute.

The state can for example upon appropriate proof get an order from a judge authorizing the reading of my mail, listening to my telephone calls or intercepting my e-mail.

(The underlying basis for this position is the general right to be immune from unreasonable search and seizure of evidence by the state.)

Now, the only way the state can regulate behavior between individuals, etc. is to prohibit behavior and impose either civil or criminal sanction for a violation.

But, in all legislation authorizing interception of communications there is an exemption -

* one of the persons doing the intercepting, etc. is a party to the communication, etc.; or

* one of the parties to the call, etc. has consented to the communication, etc. being intercepted.

(unless the "consented listening" is being done in furtherance of a crime. I am using etc. to signify the various ways a communication can be sent and intercepted.)

The first exemption is there to allow the police to use agents to intercept and record conversations, telephone calls, and so forth.

The second exemption is there when the police for example want to listen into the conversation between their agent and the third party.

So, as an example, if I consent to the state listening to my phone calls, where is the beef?

(The person on the other end of the call may be upset, but that's why we have courts and judges.)

So even if the particular Federal law does apply, to prohibit reading others people e-mail, by consenting to my privacy policy, the issue goes away.

Meaning when I sign up for GMail and in doing so agree to the terms and conditions of use, which includes an agreement Google can use computer software to read my email and put in front of me text ads for products related to the email I am reading - there can be no violation.

(I hasten to add, I am not a lawyer, but a business person with a law degree and these comments are meant for guidance only.)

The question of general privacy concerns as being raised by privacy advocate groups? A separate issue.

As I wrote yesterday, real or not, the circus continues.

Kind regards,

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

janeth

04-02-2004, 03:49 PM

I agree with Andi if you do not want them reading your email go with another company. It is no big deal.

jdiben

04-02-2004, 03:52 PM

I dont think that this is a privacy concern at all. No person at Google is going to read through tens of millions of emails and make a case by case decision as to what advertisemnets are going to be added. They will have some program scan emails for keywords or phrases and insert the ads that way. So until googles computers become self aware it is completly meaningless whether or not they scan your email. I would only agree that it was a privacy concern if employees at google were going to review random emails to check on the accuracy of their programs ad placement.

If you are really concerned about privacy you shouldnt be using unencrypted email anyway.

Joe

jackcollie

04-02-2004, 05:41 PM

As long as you go into the service with eyes wide open (yours, not Google's), then sure start juggling the knives and have a ball.

As for me, I don't view any email correspondence as "ordinary", and generally restrict all correspondence through an encrypted client and service. That costs some money, sure, but so does a stamp.

Have fun Gmail people.

PS: Imagine this:
"Dear Dave,
You were great last night. Do you really plan on <leaving your wife?> Hope so." x0x0x Jen
What gets contextually served here?
* Meet Singles in your area?
* Jacoby & Perkins - when divorce is your only option

Pulleaze

cooper

04-02-2004, 07:21 PM

Unless you run your own mail server and encrypt all email, you cannot expect to have any kind of privacy, period. When email is sent from one computer to another it goes through so many machines and is usually stored on at least two of those machines: the SMTP server (the server that accepts your email and sends it on its way) and the receiving server where it sits until the account holder (or admin) retrieves the email from said server. This is a simplification mind you, but that's basically what happens.

Anyone that expects any sort of privacy from Yahoo, MSN, your employer, school or other ISP is fooling themselves.

The fact that Google is this forthcoming about "reading" their users email is a positive thing I think. It shows that they aren't trying to deceive their users. Plus Google personnel, as well as the service providers mentioned above, (will) have access to those emails yet the likelihood of an actual person reading your email is small. The programs they (will) have in place are totally automated as it would not be cost-effective to have humans read emails in order to display relevant ads in the web page.

So what's all the hub-bub about? ;o)

Get used to the idea that you have no privacy when you use the internet.

warhol

04-02-2004, 10:10 PM

I agree, there is no such thing as private & secure anyway, especially with a free email service...

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

P.S. Did xmx fall asleep in a tanning bed or what LOL?

Dave Hawley

04-02-2004, 10:26 PM

Sounds like a storm in a tea-cup to me. IF it were to be humans reading, then that's another story. As it's only a computer, who cares? Not much different to any antivirus software really.

I for one will getting a gmail account.

cbp

04-02-2004, 10:44 PM

As it's only a computer, who cares?

EXACTLY - if you don't like their privacy policy, don't get a gmail email address - there are plenty of other options.

CBP

shyspinner

04-03-2004, 04:05 AM

Andilinks

04-03-2004, 04:37 AM

I've got this scenario playing in my head:

Teen gets Gmail account
Teen's friend sends them an email with cuss words
Google scans text of the mail
Google serves up an ad for porn.....

hhhmmmmmm......

Teen is delighted, searches Google for encyrption device to hide porn from parents...

It is a dirty (not so) little secret, that a huge portion of Internet growth is attributed to porn, and teens are the most curious about porn.

For all their touting of "family values" AOL is very popular with teens as a source for porn.

Seriously, you don't think Google has thought about that? Google doesen't serve porn ads anyway, even accidentally. But any teen on the internet who wants porn can easily find it filters notwithstanding.

It's much easier to find software (games) that give teens competency with deadly weapons than porn. I find violent games more worrisome than naked bodies.

BTW, I lost most interest in porn after I passed the age when it was forbidden.

Andi

shyspinner

04-03-2004, 05:38 AM

I agree with your opinions Andi, and if Google doesnt serve porn ads, that will be great too, not that I would really be opposed to text ads as I would ignore them, but I doubt my two sons would :) I do have a filter on this machine which would help, but I was just curious about that part of what they have planned for Gmail. As far as other kinds of privacy goes, I guess yahoo mail and hotmail /passport have about the same info on me that google already has on me via the google toolbar. I think it will be interesting to see how things turn out.

John Glube

04-03-2004, 07:22 AM

Just a quick follow up note.

* A suggestion was made of potential liability under the US Criminal Code early in this thread.

* I put forward a view point on this issue, but did some follow up research to confirm my thoughts.

* The Department of Justice has posted an online search and seizure manual giving people a complete guide as to what the Department can and cannot do.

The manual also addresses the issue of consensual interceptions.

Reading this document indicates DOJ would not consider what Google is doing is offside viz having computer software programs scan email to generate text ads when there has been full disclosure and the user consents by agreeing to the practice.

Don't believe me. Review the relevant material yourself by using this (http://www.cybercrime.gov./s&smanual2002.htm#_IVD3_).

As to the public policy issue - from press reports -it appears certain privacy groups are trying to get Google to make a commitments it will not corelate the data with the individual user in the future.

Google has said this is not our present practice. It seems Google is sensitive to the concern and likely the issue will resolve itself.

Interesting though - how responsive Google has been to the issue - once the media up roar started. A clear effort to maintain goodwill throughout the piece.

Kind regards,

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

xmx

04-03-2004, 08:02 AM

P.S. Did xmx fall asleep in a tanning bed or what LOL?

Hi,

the picture was made on august, you see... I would like it was always like that in Switzerland...

cooper

04-03-2004, 02:36 PM

spidermonkey

04-03-2004, 03:28 PM

So long as Google properly inform people of what is going to be done with the email that is passed through their servers - people are free to make a choice as to if that is acceptable to them or not and if they don't like it they should not sign-up. It's the information that Google are providing to users of the service that needs to be focused on if the service is to be fair.

MekhongKurt

04-04-2004, 12:45 AM

I myself am quite interested in Google's new e-mail service, despite the ads, privacy concerns, etc. some have, as I can live with ads and I *never* communicate anything via e-mail that others could know to my detriment.

That said, there are some murky areas. One poster kindly refers us to a U.S. Justice Department site giving its policies applicable to this case. However, whether a court would agree with this or not is another matter.

Consent does not necessarily make an act otherwise criminal into one legal. Though what I'm about to write is far different from the reading of e-mail, the underlying legal concept is not: one can consent to be murdered, but that does not make his murder legal in the eyes of [U.S.] law. Though I'm not a lawyer, I am a former U.S. lawman, so do have some experience and training in this. I simply don't know what a federal judge might rule regarding consent of a user for Google to scan his e-mail might be were that user later to be upset and take the folks who own Google to court. Any lawyers reading this may be aware of bench law that applies; if so, I hope they will enlighten the rest of us.

A different poster incorrectly says U.S. constitutional rights exist only for interactions between the State and individuals. Were that true, a police officer, say, couldn not arrest someone because of his race, country of origin, religion, etc. -- but a restaurant owner (for example) could bar people of a certain ethnic group, religion, nationality, etc. with legal imppugnity, which simply isn't the case. There must have been thousands of cases filed against individuals not acting on behalf of the State in the 4 decades since U.S. federal civil rights' legislation was passed into law. And many of the complainants in those cases have won their suits against private individuals and non-government-owned businesses.

Therefore, Google is indeed stepping into the constitutional arena with this move. I wish them well, and think it's a great idea; as numerous contributors have noted, (1.) there are plenty of other free e-mail services out there if a person doesn't like Google's game plan, and (2.) if anyone using the Internet is truly naive or ignorant enough to genuinely believe his e-mail cannot be intercepted, read, etc., then it's time for that person to educate himself to a 21st-century level. Heck, the U.S. National Security Agency is said to have the ability to intercept every single electronic communication that is made -- and it is further said that it does so, using filters to collect and store for further review communications its filters deem to be . . . "of potential interest." As the computing power available to the private sector increases, so does the ability of the private sector to imitate the NSA, at least to a degree.

This is a great thread, inspiring, as it does, strong passions, insightful views, and new information for all of us. I appreciate WebProWorld making it available, and further appreciate the comments of all contributors, even if I don't always agree with others' views.

With warm regards,

Mekhong Kurt, Web Master
http://BangkokAtoZ.com, Bangkok's Voice On The Web

zenfort

04-04-2004, 08:11 AM

Spam Assassin is running on the servers I use. If the analogy were to be made that spam software does the same "reading" of one's mail I think people might put what Gmail does into perspective. If they do say they will never collect the information etc.

If the state wants to read my mail, or listen to my telephone calls, or read my email, I have certain rights, one of which is my court created right to privacy. This right is not absolute.

The state can for example upon appropriate proof get an order from a judge authorizing the reading of my mail, listening to my telephone calls or intercepting my e-mail.

(The underlying basis for this position is the general right to be immune from unreasonable search and seizure of evidence by the state.)

The Patriot Act tends to null John's statement.

_________________
infocafe.com

Daniel Brandt

04-04-2004, 12:21 PM

The type of scanning that Gmail will do is one step beyond the scanning that is done to intercept spam. It's clear that Google will be profiling the user over time. Larry Page was quoted in the L.A. Times several days ago as saying that Google might even correlate the Gmail profiles with your search term history for the main index. They've been saving your search terms ever since Google started. Unless you delete your Google cookie, it's all retrievable.

Furthermore, there's that ugly little "infinite retention" policy that Google has. Even if you terminate your account, you have no assurance that Google has deleted your email.

Finally, Google has already pulled a fast one by inviting you to enter your email addy so that you can get notified when they're ready to accept signups for Gmail. By hosting this form on google.com instead of gmail.com, Google grabs your old 34-year cookie. Now they know who's behind your search term history. See Gmail privacy alert (http://www.google-watch.org/email.html).

cbp

04-04-2004, 04:37 PM

I have NO concerns about gmail privacy issues - I just won't be using it.

CBP

Dave Hawley

04-04-2004, 09:44 PM

Cookies! Good grief. This site uses Cookies as does millions of other forums around the world. If somebody wants to use ny cookies to better a service, good for them. This is really starting to degenerate into black helicoper theories.

JoeSurfer

04-05-2004, 12:31 PM

No offense here guys, but I think most of you have it backwards.

How about the sender? I send you a subscription newsletter that is my content, google indexes your gmail and it now belongs to them?

There will be big problems with this, personally, the only email I will be sending to gmail holders will be to inform them that I don't send any meaningful correspondence to gmail holders.

Mark Carey

04-05-2004, 06:27 PM

Excerpted from: Gmail as the foundation for personal and social search (http://www.markcarey.com/web-dawn/archives/gmail-as-foundation-for-personal-and-social-search.html)

The implications of the new service could be wide-reaching. It goes well beyond a 1 GB mailbox. It's natural that this has become the focal point of conversation, in contrast to the meager 2 or 4 MB that you get with other free services. The business case, of course is Google AdWords, serving text ads targeted to the text of the email that you are reading.

Once you start to look beyond those two aspects, however, it starts to become very interesting. One day, Google announced a personalized-search demo, and now email. Well, nothing is more personal than email (spam excluded). The problem with personalization system is that you have to fill out (sometimes huge) questionnaires about yourself, which few people want to do. The most successful systems, don't require this at all. Amazon is a great example. Based on the things you search for and the items you click on, Amazon starts to recommend this that you might like to to buy - heck, they even create a "Mark's Store" tab for me. Amazon builds a profile automically by tracking your actions on the system. Now imagine that a certain company knows what you are reading about (and writing) in emails (http://gmail.com). Further assume that the same company also knows the things that you are searching (http://www.google.com) for, and maybe even the news (http://news.google.com) that you are reading, the products (http://www.froogle.com) that you are shopping for, and even where you are (http://local.google.com/lochp). A much broader and detailed profile could be created by compiling all this information. This could be used to serve extremely relevant, personalized search results (along with just as relevant advertising).

Taking this one step further, we can remind ourselves that email is a form of communications. It is one medium that we use to interact with other members of our social networks. By keeping track of who we are communicating via email with, a company could build a graph or that person's social network. If the same company has detailed profiles of those people, then the potential is there to combine that data for refining search results and advertising. For example, if you email contacts think a particular search result is highly relevant, it may increase in the rankings when you search. Or if your friends or colleagues are clicking on particular advertisements, perhaps you would like to see those ads as well?

While the potential is huge, it is also a little scary. When we thinking about the collection and processing of so much personal profile data, we usually think about government spy agencies, not your friendly neighborhood search engine. Like many things relating to the future of Google, privacy could become a serious concern or barrier going forward.

Just when you thought the search engine wars couldn't get any more interesting...

Dave Hawley

04-06-2004, 12:49 AM

Why does everyone refer to Google like it's person? I fail to see any problems with a robot scanning emails, in or out. This info is then passed to another robot that will dish up tailored ads. All this paranoia talk is more akin to the mail censoring done during WW2 where a human would read all letters going in and out.

Anyway, must go, I think I can see the black Google stealth helipcopter outside. Someone should tell them to drop taht multi-colored "Google" logo on the tail of the helicopter :o)

John Glube

04-06-2004, 02:01 AM

Zenfort

On the issue of the Patriot Act ... my understanding was the purpose of the legislation is to deal with the "war on terror" ... but I know this is a hot issue in the U.S. ... as many are concerned the actual legislation is too far reaching.

In making my comments, I was looking at the situation in the ordinary course.

Perhaps more to the point, the EU (like Canada) has rather strict data privacy laws and yesterday Privacy International filed a complaint with the UK Information Commissioner's office ... according to this story in Reuters (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=4753349&section=news).

Whether the complaint has any merit, (aka the Gmail service is prohibited under the UK Privacy laws), or whether this is merely a publicity stunt is a separate issue.

My sense remains if I consent to having my email read by software and agree to see context based ads on my web site portal while viewing my email, I am hard pressed to complain.

What this does point out is:

* the tendency towards balkanization of the Internet ... between the EU and the United States.

* the coming ability to have personalized searches.

* the potential power of grass roots organizations.

As we move forward into a time when organizations can gather huge amounts of data about us as individuals, the ethical responsibilities in how these organizations handle this data becomes paramount.

On the one hand, Gmail, personalized advertising and searches all seems rather benign.

At the same time, without appropriate safe guards, what happens to the concept of personal freedom.

These are underlying questions which people need to think through. Just because something is technically feasible does not mean we should do it.

(aka the debate over ad blocking software versus text and banner ads.)

It is interesting, while the United States has a strong tradition of civil liberties, as we move towards a digital world, we seem to be losing our way in how to protect individual liberty.

* Marketing groups like the DMA proclaim the right to spam under the concept of commercial free speech, while ignoring the systemic costs.

* Organizations like Google speak of Gmail and personalized searches, without committing on ensuring data is not misused.

The clash between privacy and commercial freedom is the next major policy debate and how we sort through this debate will fundamentally shape our existence over the next 10 years.

Should it be a matter of rugged individuality, while relying on technology to guard us against the ability of others to invade our space.

Or do we need to sort out a social contract, working out the balance between the competing interests?

Enough for now ... but clearly this debate is going to rage for some time to come.

Kind regards,

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

weigel

04-06-2004, 11:32 AM

Privacy on the net. Unless you are encrypting everything do expect much at all.

What gmail is publicly saying they are going to do is no different than any anti-spam service or virus software. Both of these are scanning every file for a series of text to do something.

I think it will be kinda interesting to be arranging a lunch date via gmail and see resturant ads start popping up.

JoeSurfer

04-06-2004, 11:52 AM

I think it will be kinda interesting to be arranging a lunch date via gmail and see resturant ads start popping up.

It won't be fun when you have to arrange a funeral or a doctors visit.

Andilinks

04-07-2004, 01:20 PM

Why does everyone refer to Google like it's person? I fail to see any problems with a robot scanning emails, in or out.

The problem (for those who have a problem) is not the sensibilites of the Googlebot but the existence of the index which *could* be used to build profiles and address clusters that *could* be subpoenaed by a government agency or used by some evil person within Google to do harm.

I think it's a phony argument used by people who just want to bash Google for their own reasons. Anyone paranoid about the contents of their emails SHOULD be encrypting them because all email systems are insecure and encryption would defeat the Google index or any other.

Andi

John Glube

04-07-2004, 03:20 PM

The problem (for those who have a problem) is not the sensibilites of the Googlebot but the existence of the index which *could* be used to build profiles and address clusters that *could* be subpoenaed by a government agency or used by some evil person within Google to do harm.

I think it's a phony argument used by people who just want to bash Google for their own reasons. Anyone paranoid about the contents of their emails SHOULD be encrypting them because all email systems are insecure and encryption would defeat the Google index or any other.

Andi

Andi,

I am not certain people are wanting to "bash Google" for the sake of bashing Google.

In fairness, you are making a presumption about the motives of those whose objectives may be quite good.

It could well be that some who are upset believe Google offers the best service, provides an excellent alternative to Microsoft in the long run and want Google to continue to provide excellence in service.

I am not saying this is the case. To be honest, I don't know what are the motivations of those who are mounting the privacy concern.

(Why was the question posed earlier in this thread as to whether Google with its Gmail program was violating the Criminal Code provisions in the US? I can speculate as to why, but I don't know.)

On the issue of speaking about Google as if it is a person, any corporation is the sum of its people. It is something we tend to forget at times.

Google is a brand name, but it is the people who make up any organization, who work day and night, who strive to provide excellence in service and have feelings, concerns and issues, who are most affected when a negative campaign gets out of hand.

As to the issue of "could," unfortunately, like it or not, some large organizations do not have the best track record for standing tall.

Also, we live in a strange time, where the very freedoms we cherish are being used against us by radical militant religous groups.

These are difficult issues to balance. I know many are extremely upset with some of the steps taken by the present US administration in the name of fighting terror.

(It is why this election year in the US is likely to be long and vicious.)

So, all of this tends to play into the mix.

But hey, I still think, despite all the naysayers in the media, the ongoing circus over Gmail is ... well the ongoing circus.

Kind regards,

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

Andilinks

04-07-2004, 03:49 PM

Yes, certainly some who have privacy concerns about Google and the index that it builds, speak out in good faith and I should have noted that in my post.

The Google that I personally know (through extensive use and reading) is not evil and of the many large companies out there it is the most benevolent in my eyes.

This is why I am motivated to speak out when I feel this company is being bashed unfairly.

I do concede though, that no matter what Google's intentions and nature may be, once an index capable of profiling people exists, it can be used for evil.

I too am disturbed by the loss of privacy and rights due to the US patriot act. But I also recognize that there are zealots far worse than John Ashcroft whose intention it is to murder me and my countrymen. The patriot act may well save more lives than it inconveniences.

War is unpleasant. The patriot act is actually far less intrusive than similar measures taken during every previous US war with the exception of the short Desert Storm campaign of 1991. U.S. civil liberties have always rebounded vigorously after the repression during war. The American people are fiercely protective of their liberties, even when it may not be wise. Count on that!

Andi

Dave Hawley

04-07-2004, 08:59 PM

Is Google going to be retaining the keywords/phrases it gleans? I ask as I really do not know.

David Pearson

04-07-2004, 09:07 PM

George Orwell predicted that big brother would be watching over your shoulder by 1984, and he was. I was visited by the Australian Federal Police in the mid 90's because my girl friend's phone was tapped [not my phone]. A guy who looked a bit like me was harassed in the mid 80's by the local police. I was doing nothing wrong so there was no problem, but I learnt even then there is little privacy in the world. Now if I visit the US from September, I will be finger printed & photographed upon arrival, if I am not doing anything wrong I will be perfectly OK.

Google offers a huge storage facility enabling me to use my stored information from any computer I happen to be using, that is a great service. In exchange my non existent privacy will be violated, I will know in advance, and as long as I am doing nothing wrong I will be OK.

There is my point, I am not expecting privacy these days unless speaking face to face, so another computer collecting information I already "expect" to be "not private" would be OK - as long as I am doing nothing wrong.

It comes down to this, if what you are doing has to be done behind closed doors, keep it there. If you are arranging a date behind your wife's back and you get ads for a divorce lawyer, it's not time to worry about the ads, but time to worry about your marriage. If you are asking a friend for a good restaurant in his town and you get an add for just what you need, that would to me be a service, not an invasion of my already compromised privacy

JoeSurfer

04-07-2004, 10:34 PM

Andilinks

04-07-2004, 11:06 PM

Whats scarey about this is the amount of people that are willing to give google a pass on this issue.

Remember folks, we shouldn't be evil either, I can't be a cheerleader for this plan, it just breaks all the rules.

Larry and Sergey think its a good thing to "do no evil", but that doesn't mean they have a right to define/re-define what evil is. If the law has to reign them in, so be it.

It looks like the thing won't get as much traction as I had hoped. All the media outlets (M$NBC especially) seem to be hyping the scare aspect of it and getting good stories out of the big bad Google while neglecting to mention that Hotmail and Yahoo are hardly secure at all, and just as susceptible to government snooping.

Politically correct paranoia wins this round.

Oh well...

Andi

JoeSurfer

04-07-2004, 11:14 PM

It's not an MS vs. Google issue. It's a privacy issue, if Google gets away with it (they won't), others are sure to follow suit and that my friend is dangerous.

Google has no "special" status as a corporate entity, you respect privacy laws which are designed to protect everyone or you pay the price.

Andilinks

04-08-2004, 12:00 AM

It's not an MS vs. Google issue. Actually, for Microsoft it is. Your "privacy" is secure so long as you don't use Gmail. What's to be afraid of? Are you are trying to protect all of us "fools" out there that are being duped by Google?

No one forces you to use Gmail, why so are you scared? Or are you perhaps just trying to scare others?

you respect privacy laws

What law is Google breaking?

Andi

se-survivor

04-08-2004, 10:32 AM

I guess no one understands what the collection of information is all about. You all seem to have just scratched on the surface of how dangerous it really can be. You seem to fixate on how it will affect you as an individual instead of realizing the unfair advantage it gives to a large unregulated body of power.

Let me try briefly to explain how once you have access to millions of pieces of information you can do some truely remarkable things. You can look for repeated phrases allowing you to track trends that predict which stocks you want to invest in. You can sell lists of people that are ill to people selling pharmaceuticals, you can take 2, 3, perhaps thousands pieces of unlinked data and accurately predict every aspect of commerce. This is what the Defense intelligence agency does to protect the U.S.. Fortunately, they are not profit motivated. Google is.

Please wake up everyone and understand that your information belongs to you. Having someone staring over your shoulder every day in order to collate that information creates companies like MS and governments like "Big Brother". It's your choice, surrender your freedoms now and pay for it later.

John Glube

04-08-2004, 11:44 AM

Google has no "special" status as a corporate entity, you respect privacy laws which are designed to protect everyone or you pay the price.

... you have just slammed a group of people ... by implying Google has broken ... the privacy laws.

I have a real problem with this statement. ... when I consent to someone using robots to read my email and provide me with contextual advertising ... exactly which laws in the United States have been broken?

To the best of my knowledge ... none. And as to the complaint filed with the UK Information Commissioner ... what happened to the presumption of innocence ... or did that go out the window too in this whole debate?

If people are going to make charges ... about the actions of a group of people ... because that in reality is whom we are talking about ... when we speak of Google ... then let's support them with facts.

Otherwise ... they just become bashing ... for the sake of bashing and must be discounted.

From what I have read the concern is not about what Google has done ... but rather about what Google might or could do with the information it gathers ... if appropriate safeguards are not put in place.

This may or may not be a legitimate concern ... depending on what safeguards have been put in place and what statements have been made about future intentions.

At the same time, in looking at people's comments ... one needs to be concerned about motivation.

Are those who are upset acting in good faith ... or are they:

* Seeking attention for their organization (hey, it goes on) ... or perhaps part of an organized effort by a competitor to prevent the actions of another competitor? (don't kid yourself)

* Just as I am sure supporters of Google will post favorable comments, I would not be suprised if naysayers of Google post negative comments.

So ... let's be careful and not get into bashing for the sake of bashing.

Wishing you all the best,

Kind regards,

John Glube
Toronto, Canada

Andilinks

04-08-2004, 11:51 AM

I guess no one understands what the collection of information is all about.

That is quite true, I would definitely include se-survivor among them.

Yes, technolgy is quite dangerous. The development of the stone axe was dangerous as is the collection of information. However in their time each improves the lot of humankind. All of this is indeed an experiment and we don't really know where it will lead or what unintended consequenses there may be.

There are far more benefits than dangers though.

Yes, I think it is time to wake-up and realize that we are on a fabulous journey into the unknown and crawling into your cave and covering yourself up is not the way to deal with it. Participate and enjoy the benefits instead of spreading fear of the unknown.

Paranoia, scare tactics and fear-mongering have always been used to try to stall technology. From the beginning these people have said that computers would be used by big government et al to stifle the masses and they have been very wrong. I find the internet quite liberating!

Boldly go...

'fraidy cats, please step aside.

Andi

zenfort

04-08-2004, 02:05 PM

Sorry to get so political but...

This is what the Defense intelligence agency does to protect the U.S.. Fortunately, they are not profit motivated. Google is.
I agree with se-survivor except I wouldn't put the DIA in a benign light - being "not profit motivated".
When certain people have so much power and access to so much information... it can be abused and twisted to their own desires.

Sorry it has/does happen.

Please wake up everyone.... Having someone staring over your shoulder every day in order to collate that information creates companies like MS and governments like "Big Brother". It's your choice, surrender your freedoms now and pay for it later.
Just something that is part of some societies/cultures.
namaste zenfort

AussieWebmaster

04-08-2004, 02:39 PM

It may be just me but I think everyone is missing the point.
1. Spam filters having been using this technology to push mail to your junk folders for quite some time now and it is getting better with each passing month.

2. Yahoo has been doing this for some time. If you spend enough time searching with yahoo and then go to your yahoo mail account and send an email you will see text ads below the sent mail page... and they are geared towards what you have been searching for.

JoeSurfer

04-08-2004, 03:36 PM

Hey, by all means sign up for Gmail, you know the issues, don't be a fraidy now, let em in let em in.

I can't understand the effort some folks put forth defending a corporation that gives 2 snots about you, but hey, I'm just a scaredy cat.

Go boldly and end up like the real pioneers; with a hatchet in your back :)

Nothing personal, I 'm not making any money debating this nonsense but I sure wonder how many of the Gheads here are on the payroll.

Dave Hawley

04-08-2004, 11:52 PM

Good grief! We are in the year 2000 not the 1970's. All this paranoia about machines (T1,2 and 3 comes to mind)is getting a bit silly.

What makes it even more ridiculous is, all are happily typing away here, and no doubt on other forums, for the world of humans to see. Yet if Google has a robot scan e-mail to serve relavant ads they are going to use it to rule the world.

Email is (always has been) an unsecure methods of communication. If you work for a company and use their email, they can have a human read it any time they like.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

OneMoreBite

04-09-2004, 02:37 AM

Email has never been a secure method of communication, but I'm not going to use Gmail or any service that dishes up advertisements in my e-mails based on the content of the e-mail itself!? If that's the plan, I don't think I want to be a party to it.

I know Yahoo and Hotmail and others advertise themselves and other businessesin a generic fashion, and it's understandable that someone would think targeted ads would be a step in the right direction. Problem is, a company cannot target ads to your preferences until they learn your preferences and if you don't want to give them that info via a survey or questionnaire, then how better than to simply observe you?

I've watched way too much sci-fi to be excited about the idea of data mining based on my habits so my immediate solution is simply not to use GMail or any similar service.

Kathryn

Andilinks

04-09-2004, 06:06 AM

I sure wonder how many of the Gheads here are on the payroll.

Certainly not me, I have used and observed Google extensively for years and have read many interviews with the Google founders, execs and employees and based on that have formed an admiration and respect.

In the unlikely event I were to seek employment, Google would be my first choice though...

Referrals to my web site from search engines over the past 12 months run like this:

Google 78.6%,
Yahoo 10.3%,
MSN 3.3%,
Altavista 1.9%
All the rest combined 5.9%

Do you think Yahoo and MSN, who gather much or their membership from free email, might have more incentive to spread fear about Google than the other way around?

Andi