Advocate's Gmail Issues Overblown

[Garrett]

The privacy debate continues to swell over Google's recently announced Gmail service, which offers enormous amounts of storage in exchange for the ability to scan incoming emails and place ads based on keywords there.

Privacy advocates and one Californian legislator claim this is a major privacy invasion.

Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, told ClickZ (http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3335481), "the fact that it's machines [scanning emails] is irrelevant. Machines are more efficient than humans and far more able to be privacy invasive than humans because they can read so much more."

Her statement counters the common opinion that because there are no humans actually reading the emails that there is no violation of privacy. Further, she thinks that because machines are more efficient at reading emails that the potential for violation is much greater.

However, isps already scan your email for spam and viruses - the scale of privacy invasion Dixon fears happens daily.

The biggest fear privacy advocates have is that Google will be able to link specific keywords with specific users and begin to database their behavior. This San Jose Mercury News article title sums up the fear succinctly, "If Google ogles your e-mail, will Ashcroft be far behind?"

Paul Boutin, in his Slate article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2098946/), spoke with Sergey Brin and reported that, "Gmail's ad server, he says, doesn't collect any info on which ads it serves to which specific users, nor does it record users' browser cookies or IP addresses."

Sergey Brin said recently that Google may allow Gmail users to opt out of ads. He downplayed the statement soon after however, as Gmail's still in beta testing they're investigating every option, and opting out of ads is just one possibility.

Some advocates argue that allowing Gmail to read your mail could lead to heightened levels of privacy invasion, that Gmail could be the beginning of a 1984 police state as we come to expect less privacy in email.

I applaud the tenacity of these advocates - I'm glad they're raising such a fuss and forcing Google to really inspect their business practices. However, our emails are already being scanned for viruses, and those who are truly concerned can always just choose not to use Gmail or send email to Gmail accounts.

As Paul Boutin pointed out, "ten years ago, some Web pioneers had a similarly squeamish reaction when the first search engines began crawling their sites and including them in searchable databases, along with ads matched to users' queries."

[G[dot]com]

Man, you took the words from my mouth. Let me contribute here with this link:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/


Orwell maintained that the book was written with the explicit intention “to alter other people’s idea of the kind of society they should strive after.” - http://www.enotes.com/1984/

For those ones who haven´t read about George Orwell´s visionary novel, and for those of us who live our lives with the remembrance of that book present in our minds like a blemming red light.

By the way, The Big Brother TV show was based in that book, too. And certainly it was a world-wide success. Seems that people like invasion...Oh I know...only when they are the invaders.

If we don´t know what we want (anonimous but less tailored net VS a made-for-you net but a little trespassing), how can we tell what should be allowed and what shouldn´t?

If you go shopping the assistant will ask you some questions about your size, likes, prefferences... what are you looking for, to sum up. If I want to get a tailored service and benefit from it I have to be willing to give some information about myself.

What´s the problem with machines reading people´s emails? None. IF there will still be possible to get and send emails with other softs that won´t mind about what you write.

If you don´t like Gmail, don´t use it! As simple as that. And if you don´t mind watchers, then benefit from it!

Sunny afternoon over Buenos Aires. No clouds at sight :o)

Over!

Gisela

[abbeyinternet]

The privacy debate continues to swell over Google's recently announced Gmail service, which offers enormous amounts of storage in exchange for the ability to scan incoming emails and place ads based on keywords there.

Privacy advocates and one Californian legislator claim this is a major privacy invasion.

Gmail does nothing new. Most corporations scan the contents of incoming and outgoing email to block viruses, Spam, and other undesirable material, such as offensive language.

Gmail's main competitor, Hotmail, openly scans incoming emails to identify Spam and viruses. The only difference is, whereas traditionally mail scanning is simply used to block certain email content, Gmail reacts to the content of emails in other useful ways.

So what's the big deal? ;)

Tim.

[Jumbuck]

[quote=Garrett]

So what's the big deal? ;)

Tim.

Well put it this way. I'll start sending you email from my Gmal that includes a few words like cars, boats, radio, computers, real estate etc, etc, and lets just see how much of "big deal" it becomes to you as you are targetted by all and sundry.

[Spore]

I don't see what the big deal is..

There is always the option to NOT use the service..

How many of us already use Hotmail or Yahoo for second tier email accounts?

I would think most of the ISP's we use offer POP accounts.. so Outlook + PGP can prevent intrusion if it is that much of a concern..

We still have the option to not use Gmail.. and with a gig of space.. that is a lot of hamster-dance emails and finger smelling monkey mpgs. (...Profile that).

By there way.. what is the latest with Carnivore?

[tartygirl]

I have to agree with Spore. You always have the choice to use/not use G-mail. As long as Google informs prospective users of their intentions, it shouldn't even be an issue. How many other email services/websites use information from their users for these kinds of practices already?

[edperks]

Just a thought, what happens when you start getting all the porn spam will there be adds for porn all over your gmail home page?

[keywordguy]

Pesonally, I wish HotMail, Yahoo Mail, and GMail would all go away. Forget the privacy issues which people should be concerned about for sure.

If All these free "throw away" services didn't exist Internet SPAM would probably be cut in half overnight. We make it easy for SPAMMERS, SCAMMERS, and anyone else that wants hide behind one of these accounts to clog up the Internet with their garbage.

I'm very close to blocking all of these services from my servers. Anyone who is serious about doing business on the Internet should never hide behind a "throw away" email account.

Privacy? We are all like a bunch of sheep. Just say FREE and we'll give up most anything.

[waitman]

Hello All,

All of your unencrypted traffic has always been available at any one of a series of routers and servers and transparent web proxies along your route anyhow. By the way, do you have any idea of how many transparent web proxies and data collecting routers you pass through to get to anywhere you are going?

I personally believe the more data, the better. Better service, better reports, bigger intelligence. As long as it is somewhat accessible it will improve society, in my opinion.

However, I truly do not believe it would be prudent to employ a team of people, or even a single soul, to watch what YOU are doing. Even with a collection of outsource PhD's gathered around a few 8086 machines in a hut with a dirt floor. It still wouldn't be worth the money, IMHO. Most likely it would be much more productive to analyse carefully constructed reports drawing from big chunks of data. Me thinks you will remain fairly anonymous to humans.

Of course, I suppose that eventually as technology becomes more and more affordable, and it is possible to employ a software robot per each individual, it would seem possible to constantly become pestered with robotic suggestion and recommendation wherever you go. Perhaps with a little artificial intelligence, we could tell the thing what we REALLY think.

Best Regards,

[jstarkweather]

Garrett,
I agree with your thinking exactly. This is nothing more than another hot-media topic run amuck.

And as for the guy who thinks the recipient of your Gmail will start getting junk mail... man... you are a real cynic aren't you? Of course you are 110% WRONG but you probably don't care.

Jim

[urknighterrent]

Come on folks...

NOTHING'S FREE.

If it bother's you so much don't use the service. I gotta tell ya though, I think you're being naive. Don't kid yourself that you ever had any privacy on the internet.

[mad-prices4u]

I think that gmail should not scan emails, as this is like someone rummaging through your rubbish bin (trash can for the yanks)to find out what you are upto. Like some mad stalker! not that i am famous but what i am saying is, i think you should have the option to have privacy.

I have had a free 10mg hotmail account for 2 years and, this week i recieved an email from hotmail stating that "i have gone over my 2mg usage and my account has been frozen", to activate my account again i had to delete a lot of important emails.

Is hotmail phasing out free email?

So, does anybody know why? as now it looks i will have to get an gmail account, coz i dont like yahoo mail ,and, i am not willing to pay fifty quid a year(thats pounds) to hotmail for an account!

Rob.



www.mad-prices4u.com
www.getlove4me.co.uk
www.getyerhouse.co.uk
www.acar2suityou.co.uk

[urknighterrent]

Get a grip Ron.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EMAIL. Google is not a not for profit organization. It's a business. Business, yes even for us folks who make our living on the web, is about MAKING MONEY. Google has found a way to MAKE MONEY by providing you with free Email service in exchange for your willingness to have targeted advertising placed on your home page. It's a BUSINESS PROPOSITION. Take it or leave it. Your option is to PAY for Email. Me, I pay about $300 a year for me Email. I catch anyone scanning it for content I'm gonna fly out and cut their privates off. I'm not saying it never happens, but the people doing it, if they are, are CRIMINALS. I'm PAYING for the service, including confidentiality. But jeeze, Ron, if they don't make money SOMEHOW why they gonna give you Email? Because they're nice? Because you're somehow entitled to it? Lemme ask ya; You gonna put them and their families up at your place, feed 'em and all that, when they go bankrupt? THIS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT READING YOUR EMAIL. This is a private enterprise offering you a deal. If you don't like it. Don't take it. Pay the fifty quid.

[mad-prices4u]

what i meant was there should be an option for privacy if that means paying for it then thats fine.

but as to hotmail they charge allot for a small email account of 10-20mg, i wouldnt mind paying for an email account of 1000mg as its value for money. as long as i have privacy.
rob

[urknighterrent]

BTW:

How come I never got a finger smelling mokey mpg?

[mad-prices4u]

BTW:
can u explain what this remark means
How come I never got a finger smelling mokey mpg?

[urknighterrent]

OK, rob, I came down kinda hard on you. I apologize. Fact is I'm a web designer who's dealing with his first page pirate and I'm a little sensitive about people trying to get something for nothing. If you're willing to pay there's plenty of companies out there that are willing to help you. There are options to Gmail, but I gotta tell ya. A gig ain't gonna come cheap.

[urknighterrent]

LMAO, read the rest of the posts, Rob.

[Stevo]

I have to agree with waitman (above). This may sound paranoid, but who could deny intelligence organisations like the NSA and who knows who else have been reading our emails since the year dot-or at least scanning them in the interests of 'national security'...How is advertising different? Thats what encryption was invented for all those years ago... Honestly, we cant expect privacy if we dont take advantage of the technology!

[mad-prices4u]

you can get a 1 gig email account now from these for free http://www.spymac.com/network.php?p=tour so its just goes to show its nothing new. urknighterrent
its a buyers market if you can get it for free why not.

[urknighterrent]

I agree, Rob. Just understand you're making a trade. Free Email in exchange for Advertising. I'm not even saying it's a bad deal. Me, my online activities are far too dubious to be consenting to spyware and Email tracking. I'm a bad man. I'll just keep that between me and the hackers (and the DOD :D)I'd just as soon keep paying for mine. Just understand that we're all in this game to make money. Nothing's free.

[waitman]

If you want to talk about fear and loathing and privacy, check this out. Has to be one of my favorite articles.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030710.html

Hey, while you are at it, check out this great 1967 flick: The President's Analyst. Coming out on DVD on June 8th. I plan on getting that one ;-)


FYI, I don't worry about calling anyone on the telephone. ;-)

Best,

[Dave Hawley]

arrh yes, nothing sells papers and get the public interest more than unfounded fear and hysteria. Google have even, so I've heard, purchased a new black stealth helicopter to be used to spy on gmail clients!

Why are all the 'nay' sayers happily typing away on a forum that is read by millions of real people? Most of us use a company email account without a worry? These types of accounts have NO privacy at all!

Google's gonna get ya!

[G[dot]com]

Is the people of mapquest less trespassing than Google?

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=16542

I share all the post here.

Google suffers from its own success. My grandma used to say that too many eyes pointing at you will bring you a headache sooner or later.

This is the case I think. Grandma, thank you.

[Andilinks]

::: sigh ::: It will be a relief when the Gmail spying plan is finalized and all these paranoiacs and whiney complainers are put into work camps where they belong. </sarcasm>

Andi

[Daniel Brandt]

Half of Google's privacy policy is missing! What about mail that you send to a Gmail user?

The Gmail privacy policy shown by Google is a policy written only for Gmail account holders. This policy is unacceptably vague, and several key issues are not addressed at all.

For example, assuming that it is difficult to purge data from hard disks, why not implement a corporate policy so that deleted email cannot be accessed by anyone or anything at Google, after a reasonable retention period of perhaps 24 hours? This is a policy issue first, and a technical issue second. Many Internet service providers have internal retention policies such as this. By implying that it is purely a technical issue, Google is evading the need to declare such a policy. This evasion is suspicious, and one has to assume that they intend to keep deleted email indefinitely.

Another example is Google's equivocation over the correlation issue. Will Google someday match up the Gmail user's personal data with their search term history from the main index? Their single cookie for all services has a unique ID in it, and such correlation is clearly being considered by Google. Again, the lack of a statement about this in the privacy policy is suspicious.

Even after Google addresses the objections that potential Gmail account holders have regarding privacy, that still leaves half of their privacy policy missing. Everything in their policy is directed toward the Gmail user. What about those who send email to someone at gmail.com? What expectations should they have about their privacy?

We already know that keyword scanning of incoming email will be done for purposes of serving ads alongside each email. It's also said that Google will not be sharing information with their advertisers that identifies the account holder. Unfortunately, these statements say nothing about what happens to the privacy of those who do not have accounts, but send email to gmail.com. Here's the most important question: When Google scans the incoming message for keywords, will these keywords be associated with the sender's email address in Google's in-house database?

If Google builds a database of keywords associated with email addresses, the potential for abuse is staggering. Google could grow a database that spits out the email addresses of those who used those keywords. How about words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email addresses for that particular combination?

Diagrams that show social networks (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993550) of people who are inclined toward certain thoughts could also be constructed. This is one form of "data mining," which is very lucrative now for high-tech firms, such as Google, that contract with federal agencies. Email addresses tied to keywords would be perfect for this.

These billions of emails would be from all over the world (two-thirds of all search queries at Google come from outside the U.S.). This amounts to an intelligence gold mine. Yes, government agencies are doing the same thing already, by tapping into the data stream at Internet backbone hubs. But why do some high-tech pundits insist that since email is already insecure, we should allow corporations to profit by adding more insecurity? That makes no sense at all. Instead, we should move in the opposite direction and repeal the U.S. Patriot Act. (Needless to say, the people who have done the most to oppose the Patriot Act are not the pundits who defend Google, but rather those who are now asking Google to rethink Gmail.)

If governments were not eager for such data, Google would still be tempted to develop and maintain it. Without a doubt, it would be a significant corporate asset that could further enrich the owners of Google -- if not now, then in the future. Today's scanning for ad-related keywords may be just one foot in the door, a prelude to more ambitious and more profitable efforts later.

Those who send email to a gmail.com account have not consented to such monitoring and tracking, and Google says nothing about whether it will occur. All of the statements in their privacy policy refer only to the privacy of the Gmail account holder. The current Gmail privacy policy is merely the first half of a privacy policy, and even that half has many of us worried.

[synergytheory]

My 2 cents.

As has been said several times, email is already scanned by anti-spam and anti-virus software. No idea why people are upset about this kind of scanning? What's the difference, they are both reading your email, to me it doesn't matter WHAT it's looking for.

Would you rather useful Ads or Ads that don't relate to your interests?

I am looking forward to getting Ads I have interest in...maybe I'll find some deals.

I think it's laid out well too:
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/screen2.html

[Andilinks]

I happened upon this article today and found it interesting and (tangentially at least) appropriate to this discussion.

"Nowadays, on the Internet, everyone knows if you're a dog"

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/resource/apr04/0404webs.html

[urknighterrent]

I'm loving this topic.

I want it on the record:

The US Patriot Act is, in my opinion, the most heinous violation of civil rights since segregation.

I said this once before, and I'll say it again:
Google is NOT the government. If you don't like the way someone is doing business, and I certainly understand why you might have a problem with googlebots reading your Email, don't do business with them. I sure as hell won't be.

But comparing Gmail to the Patriot act?
That's a bit of a stretch.

-Don Coyote

Attn: Googlebots:
submissive bondage babes, marijuana, prostitution, gambling, weapons of mass destruction

[urknighterrent]

Thank you Andi. Very cool article.

Like I said yesterday.

Don't kid yourself you ever had any privacy on the internet.

[EJRS.COM]

What's the take on this?
Privacy.
As a condition to using the Service, you agree to the terms of the Gmail Privacy Policy as it may be updated from time to time. Google understands that privacy is important to you. You do, however, agree that Google may monitor, edit or disclose your personal information, including the content of your emails, if required to do so in order to comply with any valid legal process or governmental request (such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court order), or as otherwise provided in these Terms of Use and the Gmail Privacy Policy. Personal information collected by Google may be stored and processed in the United States or any other country in which Google Inc. or its agents maintain facilities. By using Gmail, you consent to any such transfer of information outside of your country.

[Dave Hawley]

Granted other free email accounts don't have such large storage, but did Yahoo, Hotmail etc hit this much scrutiny?

I just don't see what all the fuss is about????? Software is scanning emails world wide (without any promises) constantly. Some companies even have them read by humans, all have the right to do so if they wish.

We all know the reason why Google are doing what they are doing, targeted advertizing and later, personalized searching. What's the big deal when you have a choice.


How about words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email addresses for that particular combination?

Yes, the whole of the civilized world! Although it wont, I only wish this sort of thing did happen and suspect Daniel would too if is was he boarding the same flight.

All this scare mongering by those that gain from it is becoming pretty far-fetched. However, most to date is so patently transparent it's laughable!

[EJRS.COM]

Well, if you do choose to sign up for GMAIL then you are bound to their rules, whether or not you agree with them or spite them. Life's such.
If you don't wanna abide by the rules, you should not sign up.

[Andilinks]

All this scare mongering by those that gain from it is becoming pretty far-fetched. However, most to date is so patently transparent it's laughable!

Yes, that would be:
1) All news media looking for ears and eyeballs, and that would include message boards and newsgroups.
2) Anyone competing or hoping to compete with Google on any level.
3) Anyone who enjoys stirring gossip and fear about conspiracies, bigness and spying...

There are probably more, but these people produce their own 'echo chamber' effect. Sanity will prevail eventually, Gmail will flourish and the above groups will conveniently forget that they spread such foolishness because they will have some new foolishness to peddle.

Andi

[se-survivor]

It's really not about Scare Mongering, it's about having a realistic understanding of the loss of your personal freedoms.

Those people that choose to blithely accept the scanning of their email haven't got a clue about what they are giving up.

Once you are stored in a database it is impossible to erase that information totally once it propagates across the internet.

Case in point: (borrowing from the great movie Absence of Malice) A young woman is brutally attacked and raped. She gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion. Her Grandmother sends her condolences to her Gmail account. For the next 12 months the girl is inundated with neonatal advertisements. Before she knows it the information is sold to the printers as well. Everywhere she turns she is constantly reminded of the tradgedy of her past. There is no way to end it. She enters into a deep depression and suicide follows. Of course Gmail has no idea what they have done until the lawsuit comes.

Could she ever have predicted this when she opened her Gmail account. No, she was young and foolish and like every American that has never understood what personal freedom is about she went for the free deal.

If any one of you has ever had their identity stolen you would know how impossible it becomes to return to a normal way of life. Once you're incorrectly registered in the ether you might as well give up the ghost.

I don't have any affiliation with them (Andi), but the best internet email service on the net is "Fastmail.fm". It's ethical, cheap, and works great with large attachments. Forget Gmail.. there are plenty of other alternatives that have your best interests in mind!

[Andilinks]

it's about having a realistic understanding of the loss of your personal freedoms.

Anyone who has been online long enough to begin getting spam has a realistic understanding of this. I think you are scare-mongering and blowing this all out of proportion. I don't know and don't care what motivates you to do this, but many do it, just as many people love gossip and scary stories.

I began my online life in 1993 before there was a www and when mentions of the Internet in the mainstream media were scarce. I have been the victim of ID theft and cyber-stalking, I understand these things and see nothing to fear in Gmail. I have no affilliation with Google either--beyond their indexing my web site.

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

It's really not about Scare Mongering, it's about having a realistic understanding of the loss of your personal freedoms.

and then...


Case in point: (borrowing from the great movie Absence of Malice) A young woman is brutally attacked and raped. She gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion.

Good Grief!!! Contradiction of the year!


Those people that choose to blithely accept the scanning of their email haven't got a clue about what they are giving up.

Haven't they??? I think people signing up would have read the terms and conditions. How do you know so much about other people?




Once you are stored in a database it is impossible to erase that information totally once it propagates across the internet.

You mean like with any of the thousands of free/non-free email accounts in use today?


I don't have any affiliation with them (Andi), but the best internet email service on the net is "Fastmail.fm". It's ethical, cheap, and works great with large attachments. Forget Gmail.. there are plenty of other alternatives that have your best interests in mind!

Arrh yes, ingnorance is bliss!

[se-survivor]

Anyone who has been online long enough to begin getting spam has a realistic understanding of this.

Way off, and clearly shows you haven't thought this through.

This is a totally different animal then spam. This is about receiving a barb from your friend about going bald and being inundated with Rogain ads, or perhaps Grandma or some jerk tells you how to cure your yeast infection and guess what you receive for the next 9 months.

This is about tracking data, collating data, and making money off that data with no regard or interest in who that data belongs to. Basically insider trading.


Haven't they??? I think people signing up would have read the terms and conditions. How do you know so much about other people?

Dave, most people do not read the terms and conditions. Corporations count on it and make their terms and conditions as hard to read and as lengthy as they can. If you've read all the terms and conditions of every piece of software you've ever used, then you're a better man then most of us.

[Andilinks]

This is about tracking data, collating data, and making money off that data with no regard or interest in who that data belongs to. Basically insider trading.


Basically the same thing business has been doing for decades, not a threat.


Way off, and clearly shows you haven't thought this through.

Actually, I have. And this will be the last of the "Oh yeah, sez you!" type posts. I don't want to trot out all my credentials on a forum like this (after all I do know what dangers lurk) but just as I'm certain that you are just fear-mongering I am certain that there is no danger in Gmail.

As to my credentials, I won't go further than to say that I'm not affilliated with Google, nor do I stand to gain directly from its success.

This will be my final post in this thread, say anything you like, you have no credibility with me.

Andi

[Dave Hawley]

Dave, most people do not read the terms and conditions.

Fair point, but then they are their worst enemy, not Google.



Corporations count on it and make their terms and conditions as hard to read and as lengthy as they can.

Don't think that is true at all. They do this to 'cover their bums' from those that seek a quick buck. Unforuntanately 99% have to suffer for the 1%



If you've read all the terms and conditions of every piece of software you've ever used, then you're a better man then most of us.

True, I hardly ever read the full term and conditions of software. This is one of my points, no company or business is out to 'get you', they just wish to make money.


This is about tracking data, collating data, and making money off that data with no regard or interest in who that data belongs to

That totally true! All Google wants to do is serve up targetted ads so you are more likley to click them. There is nothing sinister or invasive about that, when comparing apples with apples IMO.

[waitman]

Hey, do you suppose that yahoo has already been doing this sort of thing? i just received an email and noticed the AD at the bottom.

I don't remember all the flutter of privacy talk about Yahoo, but maybe i just wasn't paying attention then ;-)

The message in the ad reminded me of this forum.

Check it out.

http://wcg2.com/rehearsal.html

[Dave Hawley]

Hey, do you suppose that yahoo has already been doing this sort of thing?

Along with Hotmail etc it's quite likley. Ignorance is bliss!

[xoltaric]

Businesses have been doing this sort of thing for years... maybe not on this scale but hey... I've never had an email account with 1 GB of free storage.

I fell in love with Gmail within the first five minutes of using it.

Who would you trust more?

Google who is open about what gmail can do.

Microsoft and Yahoo! who certainly have the capability of mining your email accounts as well as everything else you do on their related services (Passport.)

The little company responsible for "Mark's Weather Advisor," a little program that sits in your system tray that tells you the weather conditions in your area. You notice it seems to cause IE to run a little slower but you think nothing of it. (Mark's Weather Advisor is believed to be fictional, my apologies to Mark if it exists, I'm sure it's a fine, fine program and isn't spyware)

The US government who wants to force VoIP providers to design wiretapping backdoors into their services. Consider the legal blackhole of Guantanamo Bay "residents" too. It's scary what they *could* do with what they have access to.

The only 100 per cent sure way of knowing your private/sensitive/commercially valuable data will be completely secure is if you're not jacked in.

On the net, always assume your spouse, child, mom, boss, guru, nemesis, cat, tax collector and preferred deity (if any) are sitting next to Bill Gates, Saddam Hussein, the Russian mafia, spies from Ursa Major and 100 spammers, scammers and other crooks. All of them can see what you're doing and in the case of the Cpt. Omxpt zTkatholp from Ursa Major, she can even smell it.