[raino]

Google: Gmail Users Have No Reason to Expect Privacy

Not surprised, but good to see them formally acknowledge it.

[STV0726]

*puke*

One main reason why I hate Android...

Everything with Google is one big spying, prying, marketing experiment to them.

~STV on Z10STL100-3/10.1.0.2025 TMO US

[SkaterGuy2k]

I never did think about this and what could result in loosing out secure service. Thanks for the heads up and thing to think about lol

[wildbanger]

Google again, gosh I got my data at their offices lol

Channel : C000FA856 | Z10STL100-3/10.2.0.1047

[DenverRalphy]

Not surprisingly, Gizmodo (and other outlets) take a quote out of context and twist it for spectacular headlines. What they conveniently left out was that Google was citing a previous ruling from the 1970's, and demonstrating a parallel to today's technology. But hey, don't let something insignificant like the truth get in the way.

Expecting privacy with email providers is extremely naive | ZDNet

[urbanfarmer]

Typical of the Google Cult. Not really news...

I only use Gmail as my "spam" email now. Everything usefull has been moved elsewhere.... I hope the analytics guys enjoy trying to make up a profile based on the crap that comes into that Inbox.

[kbz1960]

Doesn't this go for them all?

[DenverRalphy]

Doesn't this go for them all?

Yes it does. But all the other hosted mail providers aren't being targeted because it wouldn't make for big headlines.

Any hosted email provider that provides spam protection and/or the ability to search your emails (which is pretty much all of them), are doing the same thing. Google simply gets the brunt of the criticism because they expanded the same service to produce targeted ads.

[raino]

Yes it does. But all the other hosted mail providers aren't being targeted because it wouldn't make for big headlines.

Kinda like the "Should Barack Obama stick with his BlackBerry?" headlines?

Google simply gets the brunt of the criticism because they expanded the same service to produce targeted ads.

Has to be more than this. Yahoo! got into the targeted ads business too, why aren't they being singled out also?

IMO, it's because of the "Do No Evil" they pretend to follow.

[z10fido]

Not sure why people expect a private room in a strangers house. Google is free. Don't like it. Don't use it. There is no expectation of privacy. Users are a commodity

Posted via CB10

[DenverRalphy]

Has to be more than this. Yahoo! got into the targeted ads business too, why aren't they being singled out also?

Because Yahoo! is not a significant competitor to the sponsors of all those "watchdog" organizations who's primary aim is to knock Google down under the guise of consumer protection.

[raino]

Because Yahoo! is not a significant competitor to the sponsors of all those "watchdog" organizations who's primary aim is to knock Google down under the guise of consumer protection.

Did YOU just hint at a media/watchdog conspiracy against Google?

[DenverRalphy]

Did YOU just hint at a media/watchdog conspiracy against Google?

Not at all. I made no reference to the media in that response. I merely mentioned watchdog organizations that have been openly outed as to who funds them. Those so called watchdog organizations are not the media.


SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta

[bobauckland]

But BlackBerry doesn't offer a secure email alternative.
They scaled back their offering in fact.
So they don't present an alternative.
So...

[raino]

I merely mentioned watchdog organizations that have been openly outed as to who funds them. Those so called watchdog organizations are not the media.

That's true.Watchdog organizations are not the media.The slash meant and/or

But it's not like Google's not fighting back:

[Consumer Watchdog's] work is funded by the Rose Foundation, which provides grants for projects like privacy advocacy, and other charitable organizations that have no corporate ties[...]According to Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court, there was a precedent. He said Google called the Rose Foundation to yank Simpson's project last year. Google declined to comment on the claim.

Consumer Watchdog targets Google

[Hilman76]

Looks like the media is trying to make something out of nothing here, which is weird as I thought the media was only out to get BB???

Unfortunately for outrage junkies, there's just nothing here. First of all, Google's argument isn't even about Gmail users, who are covered by Google's unified privacy policy. Google's argument is about non-Gmail users who haven't signed Google's terms of service. It's right there in black and white — the heading for the section literally starts with the words "The Non-Gmail Plaintiffs."

From there, Google's argument starts broadly and moves towards the specific — that's where the "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties" line comes in. That's a quote from the 1979 Supreme Court case Smith v. Maryland, in which the court upheld what's called the "third-party doctrine," saying that once you involve a third party in communication, you lose legally-enforceable privacy rights. (This is an extremely controversial notion, but for right now, it's the law.) Google's argument is that people who email Gmail users are necessarily involving Gmail's servers in the mix, kicking the third-party doctrine into effect. This is pretty basic stuff.

Then, in the very next paragraph, Google points out that email processing is a basic part of email itself, with citations to several state court decisions.

As numerous courts have held, the automated processing of email is so widely understood and accepted that the act of sending an email constitutes implied consent to automated processing as a matter of law.
And then, two paragraphs after the Smith v. Maryland quote, Google's lawyers spell out their exact argument in utterly simple terms:

Non-Gmail users who send emails to Gmail recipients must expect that their emails will be subjected to Google's normal processes as the [email] provider for their intended recipients.
Non-Gmail users. These words appear roughly 300 words after the Smith v. Maryland quote that's causing all the fuss, but it appears no one read that far.

So that's that. It's very much true that Google needs to do a better job of communicating and enforcing the steps it takes to protect its customers privacy, especially as it continues to amass data about every human on the planet. And it's a fact that the third-party doctrine as laid out in Smith v. Maryland is no longer good law — the Supreme Court didn't know about the internet and smartphones in 1979. Panic tweakers still have plenty to freak out about, in general.

But taking to arms before even reading and understanding 500 words of a legal filing? Surely we can avoid that.

Yes, Gmail users have an expectation of privacy | The Verge

[Bolderholder]

Yep, yet most folks prefer Android. People are funny that way. Confusing I find.

*puke*

One main reason why I hate Android...

Everything with Google is one big spying, prying, marketing experiment to them.

~STV on Z10STL100-3/10.1.0.2025 TMO US

[trsbbs]

Dropped Gmail like a bad habit for email but can't get the calendar to export to live.com or elsewhere.


Verizon Z10. Running 10.1.0.4651. Posted via CB10